Month: Apr 2025

Incompetence as the defining feature of Trump 2.0

16.4.25

Dear Partners in Thought, 

One should not feel good for being right so early on concerning matters like the multiple negative impact of Trump’s policies – if the term policies can still be used at all. It did not take a PhD degree in economics or being a master diplomat of the Kissinger or Brzezinski type to know that the overall Trump approach would be wrong for all parties involved from the outset. It is useful, however, to understand the key feature and sub-components of the Trump approach to managing American affairs: incompetence.

The incompetence can be found at two key inter-connected levels. The mode and type of decisions taken and who manages them. Decisions taken by a deluge of game-changing executive orders affected the world and America in no time as Trump 2.0 started – as seen with aggressive tariffs or strange foreign policy moves, not to mention the messy gradual destruction of the federal government infrastructure or, en route, the unusual and increasing attacks on the judiciary. A lot of emphasis was put on the stark news effect of such moves as the Panama Canal, Gulf of “America”, Greenland, Canada, Mexico while some other moves were very impactful in substance like with DOGE’s drastic developments or Ukraine and an odd rapprochement with Russia in the context of an elusive peace process – this whatever the grand anti-China strategic design behind it. The list of decisions impacting the world and America itself, including his own voters at the pocketbook and sheer job levels, became astounding. 

Unmanageable tariffs imposed at the same time on the whole world were a case in point, even if strong market reactions were to be expected, then also finally involving a rather passive business world to date. Back and forth decisions, as seen again with tariffs, that could be deemed “transactional”, thus very Trump-like, also reflected a desired chaos linked to an elusive but drastic clean-up (almost putting aside self-harm as secondary), all of this naturally creating a massive rebuke led by steep historical stock market and 401(k) declines in no time. And then tariff selectivity reminded us of latent corruption when supporters benefit from better treatments, at times leading to some back-and-forth moves again, showing mismanagement and late realisation of what does not fly in a still open and democratic society in 2025. As for illegal (and occasionally legal) immigrant deportations, and putting aside its costs to the economy, its challenging and unfocused management did not reflect the values and principles that made America. To be fair, Trump and his team can also be competent, like in destroying US higher education as seen with Harvard and Columbia, key historical pillars of US strength as if he held an old grudge against elite universities since his rather obscure college days at Wharton. It is hard to believe that Trump would be allowed to go forward with such crazy moves that could only create chaos while damaging America’s reputation but, unlike for his first term, there is no adult in the room – as he specifically wanted. 

Besides the incredibly harmful set of decisions seen since late January, his core team today is composed of “very average” professionals. Not stupid ones, but first known for their vocal and dissenting positions on their areas of focus in a fitting way to Trump’s own or even, for some, their strange behaviours. The US government, formally comprising Secretaries, is now populated by news anchors, podcasters, governors of small rural states, at times with weird personalities, some being anti-vaccine while others proud to have killed their dog or being mere conspiracy theorists. The usual, and needed, boring technocrats seem to be on permanent holiday. To be fair, the main adviser to Trump on tariffs, Peter Navarro, holds a PhD in economics from Harvard (his type of degree being a rarity among the top team) though he is also known to be weird and a convicted felon, which stresses a few other features and indeed a better team fit. One of the key weaknesses of Trump and his team is how they focus on the very short term, also in relation to domestic news impact, and not the range of consequences resulting from their policies – it is as if they were not mentally equipped to do so and are unable to work on scenario-management. Traditional American values and principles, or the sheer history of the country, are secondary to getting the president’s job done. Signalgate, however dreadful (even if almost funny) a national security blunder, unwittingly set the tone for poor top team quality and what incompetence really means with Trump 2.0. All participants in this highly confidential strike in Yemen kept their jobs while many tested professionals in the Pentagon and White House were losing theirs as not “belonging “, almost culturally, with the new times. The first Trump requirement in team selection today is cult following combined with obedience to the leader, so no challenging team oversight or control found in the first term can ever reappear. His team will always try to defend his and their moves as the right ones come what may and against sheer facts, this in ways that will make most rational people increasingly perplex as chaos keeps growing and the supposedly short-term pain endures. This basic assessment should not be a surprise to anyone.    

What we see is again the natural result of a populist movement (or indeed cult) focused on one man taking over the leadership of a country by winning an election in tactically focusing and capitalising on the natural anger of many voters (about illegal immigration, “woke” and, almost funnily today, inflation) though, even if enjoying a first term experience from which many would have learnt from, without having the requisite skills to run a country – especially a key one like the United States. Populist voters are generally sadly ill-equipped to understand much about “government” and are easy prey for populist leaders mainly focused on winning elections.  Populist leaders also target the elite or the old establishment that their voting base naturally see as depriving them of a good life. It is indeed a vicious circle as leaders secure power today through showbiz campaigns, often assisted by self-interested “influencing” podcasters like in the US, as if it were an end result with few skills or even interest in the chores associated with governing, even if they would never admit to this. And in the case of Trump himself, it is also a way to exist as if politics had been a natural follow-up phase to his The Apprentice TV show. Trump has treated American citizens as TV viewers who need to be kept awake, hence the deluge of strong news that he sees as defining his new presidency through “deep change”, this whatever happens later even if strangely, and perhaps sincerely, hoping for the best over time.      

The problem is that, once in power and, assuming some democratic features can stay in place, these populist leaders and their ill-equipped teams can stay in power for far too long a time, if only due to their term in office. Even assuming a likely 2026 mid-terms landslide against the hijacked or new Republican Party with a massive vote against the Trump chaos even if more so than one for the Democrats, about 21 months of Trump 2.0 could bring irremediable damages to the world and indeed America. In the meantime, however, the world may also likely react with a new geopolitical chessboard showing a much stronger China that will enjoy many more friends and a more unified and stronger Europe facing a much-weakened America domestically and globally, having erased in no time the benefits of having led the West and being the key world player for a century, as well as a champion of globalisation. These likely game-changing developments created by Trump’s policies would go much against his planned and simplistic end game. It will be interesting to see how the Trump team will explain where America is in two years’ time. And we will have the excruciating pleasure and likely associated damages nobody would want of seeing another physically and mentally declining president and his still obedient team trying hard to still exist, this in itself potentially bringing more bad scenarios for the world. 

Incompetence brought the world chaos and uncertainty, but we should all work gradually together to define a post-Trump era where the America we know finds itself anew – and the adults are back in the room (and the Oval Office).

Warmest regards,

Serge  

Trying to understand and cure the rise of populism across the West

8.4.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

As there is a global flood of much-needed pieces written about the Trump 2.0 chaotic developments and their expected negative impact on the world, I thought that it was useful to take a pause from the matter and instead, explore their root causes in the US but also across the West. Why have we seen such a rise in populism or essentially extreme-right programs and leaders across the West over the last 15 years with an acute focus today? 

Before the Trump era, especially from the 2.0 vintage, America never experienced populism, at least since the 20th century. If anything, America stood for democratic values and principles, both as leader and guarantor of what was known as the Free World. America greatly benefitted from its leadership at many cultural, political and economic levels. Europe was naturally deeply hurt by Hitler, Mussolini and Franco and others who led autocracies, at times not wholly rejected by their own populations (this leading to major wars and conflicts), while the Cold War ended with a victory for the West and democracy. The 1990s brought peace within the whole West including the whole of Europe as well as incremental globalisation linked to peace through trade; but gradually, while Russia operated a return of history, old and new extremist political platforms rebuilt their appeal among an increasing share of the Western populations. 

Trump’s MAGA base or indeed “cult”, a most successful populist gathering focused on one leader, who “represents” about 25% of the actively voting electorate and 50% of the Republican voters (as of early March, so just before the recent chaos), was a new development not seen since Charles Lindbergh and his America First in the 1930s. France’s National Rally is the child of the National Front created by Jean-Marie Le Pen (with former Vichy government and terrorist OAS partners) in the late 1960s and now led by his daughter Marine Le Pen – much in the news following her recent court conviction. While Reform UK may espouse some extremist views, and is led by Nigel Farage, an ill-fated Brexit-maker, a rapidly rising Alternative for Germany, led by Alice Weidel, with an unusual gay profile for far-right parties, also reflects its Prussian if not Soviet-controlled past given its core geographic base. And then we see the likes of Victor Orban, formerly a rather liberal politician, who seized upon autocratic features to help him keep securing his 15-year hold over Hungary, this with all the geopolitical implications we know. All those parties and individuals either secured power via elections, like with MAGA and Trump in the US (while hijacking a traditional party) or are in a position to win one like with Marine Le Pen in France, if not for her embezzlement conviction and ineligibility pre-mid-2026 appeal outcome. While the extreme right was always there and a medium to promote the career of its leaders, the political landscape of the West has drastically changed in recent years, now allowing them to win elections. It is good to attempt an understanding of why, and to see what could be done to reverse this trend. 

The political landscape has changed mainly as politics and elections, as well as society, have changed too. Winning elections today is increasingly a show business endeavour where party leaders, all the more coming from extremist and populist groups, need to appeal to voters who want simple solutions to complex issues and some degree of flamboyance. The desired simplicity is often driven by voters not being equipped to understand how societies and indeed governments are being managed, or how the world actually works. The lack of education for many is also mixed with a feeling of disgruntlement against an established elite that would have deprived them of many benefits they would have kept for themselves. This approach is often associated with a reading inability (the illiteracy rate in America is amazingly high even if not often mentioned) – this while traditional media readership is declining – and an excessive reliance on social media and podcasts that fit their desire to hear what they want. This fact is also often combined with an increased isolation rate and the inability to “exchange” on issues, especially among the younger generations, that worsens the drive for simple and game-changing solutions to their perceived problems. 

Most populist party voters are not neo-Nazis, even if they can be found among them. Voters are often driven by topics that one can understand, even if the populist solutions on offer are not the best ones to achieve what they want and keep the essence of what is democracy – which in any case they may no longer understand nor value. Trump won in November 2024 on three key drivers that many voters supported. Beyond the obvious one of ensuring prices would stay low at the shopping centre (definitely not what is happening), the two other populist drivers were illegal immigration and the so-called “woke”. Illegal immigration as a political topic can be tainted with racism but also reflects cultural identity and making sure migrants are not criminals, something that residents of borders like in Texas, can be forgiven to want. “Woke,” which can also be known as DEI (diversity, equality and inclusion) which, while projecting sound values in essence, can also be too extreme in its promotion, especially within schools and companies, where “excellence” may not always have been seen of late as the key admission, recruitment or advancement driver. Once again, the problem is with “too much” immigration, in particular of the illegal kind, and too much “woke”, all the more in the face of those who behave according to traditional and tested values like excellence or common sense. Understanding these key points is key to ensuring sound immigration and diversity, while traditional parties and governments have often missed the point, appearing to live in what they saw as new times as a result, and hoping to gain votes in other segments of the voting population. In many ways, populists often win because traditional parties and mainstream governments miss what matters to the general population of voters, many of whom will try new and often wild avenues. Trump 2.0 is a case in point even if, in this unusual case, the harm to America and the world is found at all levels of domestic and foreign policies, going well beyond the three focus drivers of its unwittingly self-harmed voters. The hugely negative impact of Trump tariffs is only one very vivid example of what ill-thought-out populist policies can achieve in no time in the globalised world today.  

Populist parties or movements, often led by people who can today expertly sell and win an election, are too often (if not always) poorly equipped to govern in the ways most voters would expect, based on past experience with traditional parties. Even if these movements have successfully seized issues that have created resentment among disenfranchised voters, the end result can be chaotic. Trump 2.0 is again a vivid example of this inability to manage a government sensibly, both domestically and internationally, with all the chaos that can follow that their own voters may also pay for (all the more when adults are no longer in the room as they were in Trump 1.0). It is clear that the way to exclude easy populist salespeople from running governments in the future is to let them show their inabilities once in power, but the key problem is that they can then also create autocracies with no future elections in sight (will there really be US mid-terms in 2026?) or create wars and conflicts to change the electorate’s focus on what is not working (what about a war with China to make my voters forget the damages?) Having said this, it is also the duty of traditional parties to keep ensuring their programmes fit the needs of voters and their leadership teams are strong to soundly convince them, and then run governments efficiently and deal with issues that matter.   

The rise of populism can be repelled but only through focusing on ways to do so at many levels and not simply wishing for the best. Society and governing will never be ideal, and many issues will always remain, but preserving true democracy as we know it, for those countries that still enjoy it, is key. Populism and disgruntlement will never die but can be managed to avoid or minimize substantial harm to all parties, including populist voters who often are the first to feel the pain. If anything, the Trump 2.0 experiment, which will be harder to defend by its makers, is a case in point even if the cost of being right is too high.

One of the key decisions which traditional governments still in power should take, and working along democratic values and principles (like in most of the EU and hopefully later in the US in a post-Trump world if any) is to focus on “educating” their electorate by making them understand what is behind democracy, government and their electoral process. In addition, governments should explain what they do at the economic, social and foreign policy levels, this in concise information letters or via internet to all citizens. Education is key to changing the minds as to how democracy works, its benefits and key features. While not perfect, it would be a sound start. 

Going more deeply, a stronger focus on mandatory public education through expanded funding would also help children and young adults to think more carefully about the benefits of Western democracies while preparing them better for a happy and productive life, hopefully gradually away from phones and other screens. In many ways, especially for Europe, strengthening education and defence should be the two joint pillars of dealing efficiently with our new world and its threats. 

As to the impact on the younger generations of social media, abusive video games and not reading books or mainstream newspapers, it’s up to all of us – at a family level – to try to make children understand the benefits of sound thinking devoid of easy manipulations and avoid the hours spent in self-imposed jail-like bedroom isolation. It is the duty of our new times.       

Warmest regards,

Serge