Dear Partners in Thought,
While we enjoy a constant media flood dealing with the November US elections, naturally focused on the presidency, I thought that I would give you my take focusing on key features that matter. I am not a US citizen but always loved America, not only for what it stood for, but also did to help save Europe and indeed the world last century. While a French citizen and proud to be a Transatlantic European of sorts, America was—and still is—my country “at heart,” given its foundations and history, but also the model it gave me in so many ways in terms of values and principles, even if never a perfect country.
Today we are faced with two candidates nominally still from the two parties that have shaped US politics for decades. While the Democratic Party is still broadly the same, even if opponents would criticize its radical left wing embracing Woke themes that are indeed arguable, the Republican Party is no longer the home of Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush with a simple but clear focus on free markets, smaller government, and a strong foreign policy as Western world leader. This change is a crucial feature in American politics, reflecting the rise of vote-grabbing populism with easy answers to complex issues seen in old democracies globally. This change is also reflected in the character of the individual who could lead America again, all the more creating a key leadership issue in our challenging domestic as well as geopolitical times.
Donald Trump highjacked the Republican Party, or Grand Old Party (GOP), as he was able to generate support from a sizeable number of voters nationally and especially in Red States, which changed the nature of the party to the point they ended up largely controlling its very own primary process as party members. Such a development resulted in many elected and would-be-elected Republican officials following Trump in order to stay in or access power in the various legislative houses states-wide or nationally. It is also possible that the traditional GOP, like the Democrats, became gradually seen as too weak or not forceful enough on key subjects we know, such as illegal immigration, always providing avenues to populist parties the world over. It is also fair to stress that social media, increasingly a hardship of our times, has not helped by shaping the minds of those who want simple answers to complex issues, that often need to be fixed. It is clear that this gradual transition seen since the mid-2010s was never wanted by the Republican establishment, most of whose members would despise an individual like Trump, but their existing and future roles took precedence over the essence and future of their very party. Today the GOP is the equivalent, even if better staffed with competent and experienced individuals, of a National Rally in France or similar extremist populist parties across Europe – even if many GOP officials would disagree, wanting their cake and eating it too. The dangerous feature in comparison is that they could and would, once in full power at the White House and Congress, deliver policies that could end up hurting America, the West and the World. As a “Reagan Republican” at heart I take no pleasure in stressing that very sad point.
Character matters too, especially for key leaders in today’s world. Trump’s style, worse than when at the White House, has clearly debased the political discourse to low levels unseen before but which resonate with its MAGA hat-wearer base, even if he is not seeing that the majority of American voters does not identify with such despicable ways – as we would hope. It is rare today to hear him on the campaign trail without crossing the once acceptable lines on how political competitors treat their opponents, especially in America. It is actually almost funny that very few Trump voters do not realize that Trump only sees them as tools for his personal ambitions while sharing really nothing in common with them – as if someone with his personality traits, and who inherited US$ 400 million from his father to launch his business ever would. His recent falling in love with crypto is the latest vote-grabbing and need-for-funding moves, to the point that it is almost laughable given all the scandals experienced by this gambling scheme in recent years. Trump is simply the poster child for the antithesis of American values and principles while the artful master of bringing show business to the highest political process and office.
His pick of JD Vance as VP nominee reflects the core features of Trump’s personality. While JD Vance certainly has qualities that led him to where he is today, he is also a “Trump mini me” who does not broaden the appeal of the former President’s candidacy but mainly shows his strong ego. Vance is also a clear opportunist, having been known in his late twenties as a writer defending the center right values for David Frum’s FrumForum while becoming shortly later a strong “Never-Trumper” during the 2016 presidential race, all on the back of his “Hillbilly Blues” book fame. His approach was very clumsy as he rallied Trump, following his Silicon Valley ex-boss Peter Thiel funding of his US Senate race in 2022, while keeping stressing his “working class” roots as a Yale Law graduate turned venture capitalist, who also married a classmate of Indian American origin, who should have made him nicer to Kamala Harris. It was almost funny to see and hear Republican Senators being annoyed and speechless by Vance’s past comments on “childless cat ladies” in addition to Trump’s recent ones on his opponent’s unclear black origins. Vance’s main danger for US society – and the world – is that he is young and could keep Trumpism alive for generations, likely not a small selection criterion for Trump himself.
Today Trump is the key player of a world where actual and would-be autocrats have risen with names we all know globally. The rise of populists, especially in the leading country in the world (which the US still is) would have serious impacts on international affairs, all the more with a more unhinged Trump 2.0 given the campaign previews we have seen. It is clear that Trump is keen on isolationism which is sold as a way to protect Americans by raising tariffs or not being involved “overseas” but would hurt America’s and its citizens’ interests at all levels, including crucially the pocket book. His historical closeness to Putin (some once argued as the Russians had “something” on him) has led to very soft stances on Russia and its invasion of Ukraine. His approach to NATO and well-deserved demand that all its member countries commit 2% of their GDP seemed to have been a way to follow an isolationist route and leave Europe to deal alone with its longstanding historical threat. It is as if world or Western leadership would no longer matter to Trump, while at the same time he stays focused on China and Taiwan, which also happen to be a bipartisan feature even if the gradual nemesis, that needs to be checked, has other issues of a demographic and economic nature to focus on, actually making them keen on continued globalization (and, as an aside, abandoning NATO would not send the right signals to Tokyo and Seoul). Trump’s focus on isolationism is in fact totally driven “by getting easy votes” from people who believe that the White House under Trump 2.0 would be essentially focused on solving their own problems and issues – this eventually leading to clear disillusions.
The good news is that America will be able to vote “for” Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and not just “against” Donald Trump and JD Vance – even if both moves will be key drivers with the latter feature seen in recent elections like in France. Values and principles matter and a Harris-Walz ticket, also relatively well-balanced in its composition and quite personable, is the continuation of what America needs, as well as the West and frankly the world. While not reflecting a choice between Good and Evil (that some could argue about), the contrast between the two tickets should be clear. A Harris presidency would naturally be different at some levels than previous ones, also given the backgrounds involved, but expectations for sound continuity would be met. Society would of course not drastically change overnight, while an otherwise wealth-creative capitalism with its known excesses would likely go on, but would be clearly regulated and not subjected to political paybacks likely for Silicon Valley or the crypto crowd as could be expected with the GOP ticket. Opponents of the West would know that America would still be there to defend the values and principles that made it strong and ensure sound geopolitics in unison with its allies globally. Putting aside policies that can be discussed in detail ad nauseam, Harris-Walz is a vote for Reason and Stability, all the more so for America and in a world that needs wise and strong leadership in its challenging times, and the return of History as seen in Europe and the Middle East, if not globally.
Warmest regards,
Serge
Desperate Measures 