Tag: news

On the changing nature of the Western democratic landscape

24.11.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

While being a gifted amateur on matters of political science, all the more when they touch the essence of domestic politics in the Western democratic world, it is hard not to notice both in the US and across Europe a real shift of the political landscape. Adults living in the second half of the 20th century would find it hard to relate to political forces opposing each other today at the electoral booth, in the streets and at the dinner tables. 

The world evolves as we see with Big Tech (and now, even more so, AI), bringing drastic changes that supporters explain is akin to previous industrial revolutions. It is a fact, even if a dauting one, all the more for those who will be AI-jobless while the mega-tech billionaires will keep thriving. It would appear that our political landscape has gradually changed too over recent decades. There is no more of the usual fight between the once traditional right and left as they have actually also changed in nature and the left-right terminology no longer fully applies. Today some would argue that the divide is more between pro-democracy parties and mild autocracy ones. Others would see the divide between traditional centrist parties against hard right parties, the old social democratic left having been marginalised (like Mitterrand’s once powerful Socialist Party in France) if not taking a hard but unsuccessful version of its former self. Polarisation has also become the word of the day. And it is clear that many voters increasingly dissatisfied by traditional democratic parties in power have shifted their votes to hard right ones that have also gradually and smartly moderated their stances when closer to power, looking at the rare but so far highly practical and effective Meloni example in Italy. 

It is clear that old right-wing parties like the Republican Party in the US under Trump have had to deal with a combination of White House autocratic leadership flavour with endless executive orders and retribution lawsuits against opponents, while experiencing an unexpected and odd left-wing protectionist shift against free trade that was a key historical tenet of the Grand Old Party. It is clear that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would be rather perplexed when looking at their own party today, even if many elected officials may gradually refocus on their core values as Trump’s poll rating keeps going down (35% post recent elections) – and they follow their natural job preservation mantra as already seen. The Democratic Party also went more left in a country where the word did not really exist, in order to accommodate at times the cultural and societal needs of its big urban centre voters, losing some of its centrism appeal on the way and paying for it dearly nationwide. 

Unwanted immigration, regardless of any criminal feature and as it was perceived by many as altering national identity (even in a country of immigrants like the US), became a key factor in changing the Western political landscape. Fifteen years ago, the economy and “affordability” were the key issues for many voters (it still is as we see with Trump) but immigration waves, at times welcome by the likes of Angela Merkel due to the need to boost the national economy, brought many issues that gradually focused the voters’ minds and gave rise to hard-right parties, often led by good marketers, to increase their share of the vote. Today, they lead in the polls in the UK, France or even Germany (some even arguing, not crazily, that they even won in the US, historically the first democracy in the world). 

As an aside, and even if potentially seen as a far-fetched point by some (if not many), one could argue that Osama bin Laden won in the end. While 9-11 was a horrible tragedy, it led to various US military operations in the Middle East that many felt warranted but led, years later, to the Arab Spring and a total dislocation of some of the regimes and countries in the region that fostered mass immigration waves with societal impacts, like security-related ones, that we keep seeing today. (Even the UK Labour government is now dealing with a change in its refugee asylum policy.) The current upheaval in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, following the retreat of the former French colonial power and its replacement by the new Wagner Group (interestingly named Africa Corps), allowed for regional Jihadists to be on the verge of seizing control of these countries, which might lead to another wave of immigration towards Europe as the horrific civil war in Sudan and the horrific Tanzanian developments easily could – and strengthen its far-right parties. As already stated, these far-right parties, that offer easy solutions to complex issues, provide new avenues for many easily swayed voters. These voters are frustrated by the often-slow pace and absence of clear results of democratic European governments that are also culturally attached to values and principles like human rights and a natural aversion to racism, making them struggle with managing issues like mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East, illegal or not, in the 21st century.  In some ways, and while American agriculture experiences strong labour shortages, the Trump team combined the fight against unwanted immigration with that against crime but also the drug trade, this also leading to drastic geostrategic and military developments as seen in Venezuela.  

The new political landscape is linked to the fact that elections are a game today where the hard-right has shown uncanny excellence. Ideology matters less than dealing with some issues like immigration and affordability – at least in words, usually strong. The problem with hard-right parties, even if they can win elections, is that they are usually ill-equipped to manage governments efficiently while their programmes create strong, if not always violent, opposition, changing the very nature of life in some countries. An additional feature of some far-right parties, especially in Europe, is their closeness to Russia, which is today the natural enemy of democratic Western governments in the context of the Ukraine war and multiple daily disruptions led by Russian intelligence. It is clear that the rising AfD in Germany, Fico in Slovakia, Orbán in Hungary or some unexpected and unfit Babiš coalition partners in Czechia are not anti-Russian (to say the least), at times on energy grounds, even if Nigel Farage in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France (in spite of her 2017 campaign previously funded by a Prague-based Russian bank) and clearly Meloni in power in Italy took their distance from Moscow, all the more as they know where their voters stand on the matter. 

We live in a Western world where winning elections is the end game while governing has to be done but is often mismanaged, notably by hard-right leaders, with back and forth moves à la TACO as seen with Trump in less than one year. At least, we still benefit from a democratic environment and set-up which at times can put a stop to the overreach of some of the hard-right leaders as seen in America – but for how long? It is clear that it is key for increased voter participation in elections, as long as they are free and fair, especially from the younger generations who should focus more on their own future and manage their love of social media, if not video games, in a better self-preserving way. On the same note and as Erdoğan’s opposition leader and Mayor of Istanbul, now facing “2000 years” in jail for running a criminal organisation (real democracy in Istanbul?), said, it is key to “communicate” with everybody of all ages and political inclinations to foster dialogue and better understanding of what matters. As Ekrem İmamoğlu stressed in a great way all should remember: “People-ism against populism”.      

Warmest regards,

Serge                                         

Envisaging the likely scenarios post-hard right populism collapse in the West 

10.11.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

I took a writing break these past two months as covering the ceaseless Trump developments, which many do across the pond, was becoming very toxic as an endless act of democratic despair. I decided to take up my pen again after telling some of my Financial Times writer friends what I thought the post-Trump era could bring, a topic that we see starting being covered as the tide may have turned following recent elections in the US. In doing so, I will focus on rational developments, short of revolutions while assuming democracy would still endure in our old West. This topic may not relate only to the US but also to quite a few key European countries like Britain, France and even Germany.

The Trump era is one of an abandonment of traditional values and principles that made America since 1776 and a rise of a form of – so far – mild autocracy seen with the exercise of executive powers that even a Trump-friendly US Supreme Court starts reviewing and questioning (for example with the implementation of systemic tariffs). As I covered at length and well beyond trade, the Trump administration pursued unusual policies such as deploying troops in large Democrat-led cities, attacking leading universities that paradoxically have “made America great”, mass-deporting immigrants at a time when they are needed by the US economy, all while making elitism a bad word so as to please a voting base of often non-college educated which is  usually based in rural areas and states where the current Republican Party enjoys an already excessive representation set-up. Today Trump’s support stands at 37-39% after ten months. In Europe, populist parties lead the polls in Britain, Germany and France while at times disrupting the governmental process even if elections are not “planned” in the short term – for now. However, hard-right populists can win votes in responding to voters’ disappointment with the traditional parties by offering easy solutions to complex issues – their main strength – but they usually are ill-equipped to manage governments efficiently, often leading to the demise of coalitions in the short term, as recently seen in the Netherlands after only two years.     

While hard-right populists increasingly win, as many voters are disappointed by the slow pace and perceived mismanagement of key issues – like, indeed, immigration – by liberal democracy and their traditional parties, they are often now supported by ultra-wealthy business leaders as seen with the “Big Tech Bros” in the US with Trump. While they often change their previously liberal essence to gain favour from Trump and the like, these business types help form an unusual leadership set-up that combines extremist politics and business (in the case of tech, also fostered by social media platforms those leaders helped create). The rise of the mega-billionaires under the Trump era is also a reflection of the demise of traditional capitalism, when ultra-money has become a leading value or objective of a tiny few at the expense of many, including those voters who supported the Trump rise and populist parties aspiring to gain power (see Elon Musk and the AfD in Germany, also his “market”). Money has become an excessive feature of modern society even among those who seemed to care about the “people” when realising that even Nancy Pelosi and her husband made USD 130 million in stock profit since 1988 when she was a member and then leader of the House of Representatives, a key public role.

It would appear that Gen Z and many young voters are now shifting leftwards as seen during the recent US elections as well as many Hispanics and Black Americans who had supported Trump in the 2024 elections, the latter that had created an odd coalition with the disgruntled and vastly white nationalist MAGA base. It would also not be surprising for many in the MAGA base to desperately shift their disgruntled extremism from a hard-right stance to a hard-left one, all the more after they deeply suffer economically from Trump’s policies while seeing the clear rise of the mega-billionaires who also keep reducing staff and indeed their jobs as seen with Amazon. While the younger generations are shifting leftwards both in the US and Europe, also in rejection of Big Money and its impact on society, it is possible that disappointed hard-right voters keen on extremist societal approaches, could join them and help creating a new seismic political shift.    

Although it was not foreseen a few weeks ago, it is now possible that Trump could become a “lame duck” following the 2026 mid-terms if he keeps delivering his senseless policies with no sound advisory control from his top team that was clearly not selected for this role. While hard right nationalists are likely to fail while in power, it is not yet clear whether a soft version of socialism, as shown with a gifted and charismatic Mamdani even if in an admittedly differentiated New York City, or a harder-left version would prevail. It is possible that a younger and less civil Bernie Sanders might win the Presidency in 2028 if the Trump slide goes on or a more moderate and centrist Californian Gavin Newsom could prevail, also as he would fit the American political essence, as seen with the recent strong victories of the Democrats in his California as well as for the Virginia and New Jersey governorships. What is clear is that the Democrats will need to focus on issues of affordability and stay away from extreme cultural issues if they want to win in one and then three years. Europe, which is more extremist than America in nature (at least until the Trump era), may find it harder to find another centrist solution à la Macron to replace an eventually likely failing Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen (Bardella) government if they were to happen – but future history will tell. At the same time, current and potential hard-left leaders do not seem today or in the near future likely inhabitants of Number Ten or the Elysée Palace. 

We also live in a different world, with a new and gradually changing order since 1945, which makes it crucial to think about its likely scenarios so that individuals and businesses can adjust best and keep thriving. For this there is a need to manage risks, old and new, while ensuring that rules are clear and ethics prevail from the boardroom to the family dining table.      

Warmest regards,

Serge

Understanding why the centre is failing 

14.7.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

As we live in a new world marked by the resumed and unpredictable Trump era and the rise of populism and its autocratic style across the West, I thought it was interesting to understand why the political centre is failing today. 

Today the so-called centre comprises centre-left and centre-right political parties and governments that used to be simply seen as left and right since the end of WW2 when extremist parties, notably of the hard-right populist type, were by and large non-existent. The difference with the past is that populist parties that would have been put aside by any electorate in the second half of the 20th century have risen to levels where today they are potentially in positions to win general elections and run key countries in Europe. It could be argued that the hijacking of the Republican party by a populist Trump, even if he did not have a hard-right party to support him in the US election, is akin to a drastic change of the political landscape that led to populism and an autocratic style in power (this shown by executive decisions and little supervision from a politically captured US Supreme Court). 

No doubt, liberal democracy can be seen as too complex and slow-moving for many, all the more so if coalitions are in power (as seen in France today – as the only way to keep the hard right out). Centrist parties are also not known to be decisive when in power, creating a combination of features that result in slow motion and little if any solutions to problems societies face today (as seen by many British voters with the Labour government after one year in Britain).  The priorities of centrist governments may not be seen as aligned with many voters’ concerns due to a lack of desired and at times needed change combined with the complexity of governing.

Beyond the eternal key voter concerns linked to the cost of living, two issues have invaded the minds of many voters across the West, prompting electoral wins like that of Trump in November 2024. The major one is linked to immigration, legal or illegal, even if many economies depend on it while most voters fixated on it would never take up the jobs that need this workforce. The problem is also linked to national identity, a sensitive topic that can have flavours of racism, but is felt vividly by many across the West, this especially following the aftermath of the Arab Spring and implosions of a few countries in the Middle East that triggered mass-immigration. The second issue for many voters who followed populist parties, was excessive diversity that seemed to decrease the prospects of many voters to reach what they saw as their natural roles in society, especially among white males – again, as seen in the US. 

Populist parties have exploited these two sensitive issues for electoral gains as they saw them as an easier way to deal with voter resentment in order to increase their positions and eventually win power. As previously stated, the problem is that, while such an approach can help populists win votes, it does not change the fact that most, if not all, populist leaders are ill-equipped to manage governments, all the more so in our intricate times. The French have always enjoyed graduates of top graduate schools to eventually manage their country (especially ENA or Ecole Nationale d’Administration since 1945) while the would-be hard-right populist presidential candidate in 2027, Jordan Bardella, a very nice and appealing young man of 29, is only a high school graduate. Populists focus on the message (borrowing much from the show business world to make it more appealing) and the resentment, also playing on an anti-elite feeling often with candidates who seem culturally and socially closer to their electorates. There is little doubt that populists are good salesmen as seen with an ever-present Nigel Farage and his new post-Brexit Reform UK or with Alice Weidel for the AfD in Germany (with Prussia or eastern Germany being a new and for some historically natural home for the party). The focus of populist parties is clearly on easy-to-understand harsh policies that should respond quickly and drastically to the resentment of many voters who feel societally lost and forgotten by what they see as the established elite of our times. 

One of the key tools, at times not planned but certainly exploited by the populists, has been the rise of social media with its influencers and the sad fact that younger generations do not read as much as older ones when they read at all (also explaining the demise of traditional newspapers and magazines and the rise of subscription prices many of us witness). People do not “think” as they did when they ever do and, as such, are more prone to being influenced, all the more by easy solutions to complex issues, also where their management is not the core focus of the primarily attractive message. The perceived inability of getting things done by traditional politicians and parties and radical game-changing options are the core and increasingly well-received message of populists, enhanced by new and constant social media, to gain power today.    

The centre is seen as reflecting a broken society where nothing voters want can happen efficiently, due to the slow and sub-efficient process often attached to democratic institutions. Voters who vote for populist candidates and parties want quick policy results, often not realising that such regimes they want will likely one day stop asking for their votes. It is actually possible today, however, that many voters – hopefully a minority – would not miss democracy and their voting rights if they saw their key wishes being implemented, though populist management efficiency is not likely to be there in the first place. However, with time, lasting autocracy and its likely features like official and natural corruption, would likely be resented even by those who brought it to power.   

Managing government in Western democracies will always be a complex enterprise mixing short- and long-term issues, often delicate in nature and taking time to get results seen by electorates.  The system is not broken, but is facing a new social media era combined with a breed of politicians across the West primarily focused on winning elections at all costs and not thinking about what it means to be in power in a democratic context. Easy populism and government efficiency are de facto antinomic, all the more in a true democratic context. Managing government may be increasingly seen as inefficient and boring but only reflects a very involved process and set of steps that are today needed to keep democracy alive and indeed working. It is the work of centrist parties and politicians to get this message across, also using the new media tools of our times. 

Warmest regards,

Serge                          

The multiple conundrum of the Israeli-Iranian conflict 

20/6/25

Dear Partners in Thought,

While not being an expert on Middle Eastern affairs and having stayed gradually away from the atrocities seen in Gaza as not being able to cope, I was asked to give my take on the current descent to hell between Israel and Iran. To do so, I chose to give a take on one hand from a European observer and, on the other, to cover the multiple issues facing Trump 2.0 and its core MAGA base, top officials and influencers. The best word to describe this dual and inter-connected topic is conundrum to remain polite and civilised in our new times.

Having grown up remembering the Shah and his wife Farah (I looked like their son when in my early twenties) and not being so aware of Iranian politics, I thought they presented rather well on their official pictures. But not all was going very well in the Pahlavi Kingdom and we had in the Paris suburbs the leader of the opposition, a cleric named Khomeini, whom President Giscard had allowed to stay while not waging an outright war against his regime. Then the Shah fell, and Khomeini became the Supreme Leader in 1979 – 46 years ago. It is clear that the then-new Iran was not always liked in the region, leading to a war with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s, while the new theocratic regime became very hard on its own people, especially women who ended up with no rights. Demonstrations, when suppressed, led to numerous executions in a trend that lasted until today. It is clear that Iran became an international pariah that a few enemies of the west like North Korea and now Russia stayed close to but with some distance (while other powers like China needed oil). Looking at a war with Israel, no European country supports Iran today while many are worried about its rising nuclear capabilities given their clear military focus. Regime change would certainly be welcome (also by the Iranian people) but the way to reach it appears too dangerous for all parties and potentially leading to a messy regional destabilisation including in the thriving part of the Gulf. 

Israel is the child of the Holocaust, even if that region was populated by Jews since the early 20th century. Europeans naturally supported Israel in all of its conflicts since the Six Day war, as it was part of the western camp in an often-hostile region, but also as there was a feeling of moral obligation and at times, for some, Holocaust-based guilt. German premier Merz clearly and, for many, unsurprisingly supported Israel’s attacks on Iran in the strongest way, also given the goal of avoiding potential nuclear annihilation. There was no question for Europeans and the west at large that Israel was always the “good guy” in the region. The horrible October 2023 Hamas attack created universal western uproar, justifying a strong response that I also felt was justified. However, the situation degraded quickly, not making the Netanyahu government and leadership liked like Moshe Dayan was. It is clear that Iran created an unstable region by backing a dangerous Hamas that kept the Gaza people prisoners, while Lebanon was also seriously affected by an aggressive, if slightly more stable, Hezbollah (and then the Houthis of late in Yemen did not help). It is hard to understand rationally why Israel keeps destroying Gaza after nearly 21 months while depriving Gazans of basic and humanitarian-delivered food by killing so many people, including from aid organisations. It is sadly clear that Netanyahu is not keen on losing power and facing the courts on his multiple legal cases. The official mantra of stopping Tehran acquiring nuclear capabilities, even if rational, gets weaker as the crisis unfolds, even if one has to be impressed by the legendary skills of Mossad when eliminating the military elite of an enemy. It is also clear that Israel’s actions have lowered European support, that initially was strong, also leading from multiple condemnations from many key EU states. We are now faced with a conflict where Europeans do not know with whom to side, while developments involving a desperate Iranian regime could lead to very bad outcomes not seen since WW2, even with the Ukrainian return of history.  

While Europeans do not know where to stand and what to say on this conflict, Trump 2.0 keeps to its transactional ways. This time with very clear demands for an unconditional surrender of Iran that could only lead to a rebuke based on national pride, all the more as there was an ongoing US-Iranian treaty negotiation that Bibi rashly interrupted, having his own tactical reasons. Statements from Trump that the US “may or may not intervene” is of course textbook Trump 2.0 as during the back-and-forth tariff policies or the never-ending postponements of the TikTok ban. President Trump is leading the show but his MAGA elite officials, influencers and most of his base are not keen on foreign intervention as clearly – if not vociferously – stated by the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon. They all believe in “America First – and only”. The new “Lindbergh” JD Vance is not keen on this foreign adventure either while even the top national security and intelligence team is opposed to it. Tulsi Gabbard, the Putin-friendly National Head of Intelligence, who is not fond of her own intelligence teams, and Kristi Noem, the dog killer and loser of her Gucci bag and 3,000 dollars while visiting jail inmates, are also opposed to other “lost wars” (on a funny note, Gabbard called the Iranian Supreme Leader “Khomeini” in a March statement to the House Intelligence Committee, stressing (if it were needed) the quality of the top US executive team). In true Trump fashion, Gabbard was not invited to a Camp David meeting dealing with Iran this month. It is also funny to see Marjorie Taylor Greene, the odd MAGA hat- and t-shirt wearing US House Representative, going against the man that helped make her as she opposes an old interventionist America. The only senior Republican proponents of intervention seem to be the older US Senators like Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell or a colourful Ted Cruz who stick to old GOP foreign policy principles but do not reflect the majority of Trump supporters, even beyond the core MAGA base. However, it seems that, even with a two-week diplomatic window to reach a deal, there will likely be a US intervention to go after the “Fordow bunker” where the Iranian uranium his enriched and hidden. It is interesting to see how an old conflict and indeed now key US political conundrum could derail Trump 2.0’s core MAGA leadership and base at a time of an already 38% national approval rating in five months, even if three and half years will be a long time, while the mid-terms should hopefully bring the world some needed joy and America some hope. 

Warmest regards,

Serge           

The sad slide of America and its impact on the world 

17/6/25

Dear Partners in Thought,

Within nearly five months of Trump 2.0, we saw a deluge of executive orders often aggressively and erratically dealing with a wide number of issues at all levels, but going nowhere positively, while gradually destroying the core tissue of America and the world we knew.   

Trump 2.0 is not simply a political phase of public mismanagement or excessive policy making. It is the end of an era for America and the world. These unforeseen times – and indeed one man – have unleashed, however unwittingly, amazing developments such as the actual and attempted wide-scale assassinations of Democratic state representatives and their families in Minnesota as if all was now fair game for extremists. America is now sliding into autocracy, with the US ordering state national guards and even US Marines to deal with mostly pacific anti-deportation demonstrations, thus creating more violence as a result. The US executive style has now reached unseen lows, with descriptions of California Governor Newsome as “Newscum”, and the same for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. And in the midst of such rapid democratic weakening, almost unnoticed substantial self-enrichment appears to be a new and acceptable presidential attribute. While what matters in Trump 2.0 is mainly the news impact and, it appears, Russian-style military parades, all these events slowly but surely throw America back to the late 1850s when a civil war was looming.    

Trump 2.0 and its quasi-1930s Lindbergh protectionism have also empowered many foreign leaders to adopt aggressive moves against their enemies, knowing that President Trump will not mind or will be too weak to react, thus making the world more dangerous and even nuclear confrontations more possible. We know that history is repeating itself and that many of us have no memories of WW2 or even the Cold War as more than 50 per cent of Americans today were not born in 1985. The degree of passivity about Trump 2.0 of many in America is still surprising, notably within the business community, though we see that this is likely changing as enough is indeed enough. 

The MAGA base, often but not always poorly (if at all) educated and living in often empty areas, naturally wants a king (hence the fair point with the No King demonstrations) as they look for quick executive decisions implemented without the often-slow pace and intricate process of liberal democratic governments. Populists the world over play on this colourful electoral selling of quick and simple change and anti-elite feeling, often taking advantage of the fact that democracies are slow-moving. In the case of America, the excesses of diversity or woke drives and substantial illegal immigration – two areas that are not “black and white” in essence as the US economy would agree on the latter – sent Trump back to the White House where he could be even more himself this time, mostly surrounded by obedient servants.

As belonging to an early Gaullist family, having worn a “Giscard at the top” tee-shirt on the Champs Elysées at age 14, and having been a member of the national youth team of Chirac’s neo-Gaullist RPR party under the helm of a then-young Sarkozy, I am no raving leftie. I am for law and order – though in their fair versions, unlike what we see across the pond today. I know what matters and the value of fairness and professionalism in politics, something which is missing in the American executive today, all while their voters will be the first ones to pay for the misdeeds we keep witnessing. It is hard to believe that one man, who is treating his country and the world as if it were an episode of The Apprentice, is behind all the chaos we see and we may pay for. Trump 2.0 will be a treasure for political writers for generations to come, assuming we still have a going world.  

As a French-born transatlantic European who enjoyed his visits at Yorktown, I feel we need to assist the Trump opposition while both traditional parties remake themselves as they badly need. We need the strong America we knew with its Western leadership, soft and real power, all based on values and principles that strengthened democracy globally. 

One thing is sure for the geopolitical risk thinker I am: America may have become a risk for many, including itself. Trump may also have unwittingly served the interests of some of the many rivals or competitors he naturally dislikes under the misguided and self-harming banner of his America First. 

Warmest regards,

Serge

About Trump’s unwitting impacts on world affairs and a great damage to America 

29.5.25

Dear Partners in Thought,  

Four months into Trump 2.0 one would be excused for taking a break in writing about the developments seen to date or even following the news given their level of toxicity. Trump 2.0 has changed America and the world we knew, all the more (but not only) in the West, in no time. Following the recent show biz-flavoured populist politician recipe of offering simple and hard solutions to complex issues to largely disgruntled or feeling-left-out core voters, Trump secured a second term that was an even stronger departure from his first one with the emphasis on quick action and obedience first through “doers” who would never have been seen in any presidential team in the past. In doing so, Trump destroyed both the reputation and standing of America in the world while weakening his own country and even his own voters at many levels in no time. 

The list of unbelievable negative impacts is as long as the number of executive decisions taken in no time – a huge record in US presidential history – and would need a long book to cover them. I feel sad to have been right early on about many of these decisions and their impact at the economic, social and diplomatic levels for America, its traditional allies and the world. Today I would like to cover two developments that stress the clear weaknesses of Trump’s erratic and negative grasp of international affairs while stressing the one unbelievable case of hurting America’s core interests at their very heart. 

Trump lost it when attacking Canada and wanting to make it a 51st state, this along with wanting to seize – or even invade – Greenland while renaming the Gulf of Mexico (incidentally attacking later the Associated Press on the matter) or being overly friendly with an imperialistic Putin (even if, like with tariffs, he goes back and forth on his legendary love for the new tsar). By following this ill-fated route, Trump created an impact that was very bad in terms of America’s standing while quickly clarifying how bad his new administration could be. In some ways, while many see him as a Russian agent for many reasons, he unwittingly behaved as a liberal democracy one by ensuring the victory that was not so clear pre-Trump 2.0 of the candidacies or the parties of Mark Carney in Canada, Anthony Albanese in Australia, Nicusor Dan in Romania and even Edi Rama in Albania – all liberal democrats of various flavours and for sure not populist leaders – this at a time when their victories were far from assured. Trump made them win as a reaction to his own world-changing policies. In some ways, Trump can also be seen as a European agent as his nasty tirades made European leaders wake up (Germany and Merz being a case in point) as to the necessity of strengthening their own defence and not just relying on the American big brother, even if it made sense at many levels for all parties in a different time. It is clear that elections, and indeed history, are often shaped by near-term events and feelings. It is not certain that Marine Le Pen, if able to run, or her ill-equipped junior Jordan Bardella could not win in France in 2027 or that Nigel Farage could not eventually win in Britain due to the tiredness of traditional parties and their electorates. And finally, Trump unwittingly set the path for a closer economic rapprochement between Europe and China, the latter that needs globalisation to exist. The problem with Trump and his team is that the focus is on the “moment” or the news of the very day as if we were all playing a role in his Apprentice TV show. Trump is not focused on the long term – he does not care as he will not be there. In some ways his “policies”, while disturbing the world order and weakening America, may have helped strengthen Europe while reshaping a different but potentially viable world, this being said with an emphasis on searching for an optimistic outcome post-nightmare and Faulknerian “sound and fury”. 

The latest disaster that reflects an easy move to please his disgruntled and anti-elite MAGA base is to attack Harvard, the oldest university in America, founded in 1636, and a beacon of excellence at all levels. Suppressing all the funding of Harvard on very dubious grounds attacks scientific research at the highest level and what was American excellence for generations, as all the Kennedys, including RFK Jr, would agree. Suppressing foreign student attendance, including the 7,000 who study there, is simply crazy in nature and against the very interest of America. More than one million foreign nationals study in American colleges and universities every year with an amazing impact on the finances of America then and later in the workplace, not to mention its diplomatic and geostrategic status, whether they stay in the US or go back to their own countries (43.8 per cent of the Fortune 500 companies were created by immigrants as Elon Musk could testify). I went to America for the first time to attend a semester at Harvard in 1981 to improve my English. I went back to Harvard in 1982 for another semester to study US foreign policy and international economics. I went back in 2008 for a special programme at Harvard Business School in my field of private equity and venture capital. While the academic experience was always great, being there and mixing with such a talented international crowd of students was what made Harvard such a pillar of US comparative advantage. And this unique experience helped make me early on who I became personally and professionally. It is an invaluable asset for America, which only someone like Donald Trump – with a rather opaque personal history at Wharton – cannot see. 

On a final and humorous note (the latter we always need in dire times), there is one segment that will certainly benefit from Trump’s erratic policies and style. There is no doubt that geopolitical risk and risk intelligence firms will benefit from Trump 2.0 given its main impact on world affairs: uncertainty. At least I should be productively busy. 

Warmest regards,

Serge  

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                                             

Getting the right take on Trump’s impact on America and the world

19-2-25

Dear Partners in Thought,

In less than a month back at the Resolute Desk, there has been a flood of Trump’s executive orders that are changing America and the world as we knew it. While it is potentially mind-damaging given its extent, it would be useful to keep track of most, if not all, of the decisions taken by the US President and seeing their gradual impact when implemented or if they are just for show and transactional tactics. The list is indeed very long and reflects many points of the infamous Heritage Foundation “Project 2025” that the Trump team had worked hard to dismiss as not their programme during the electoral campaign. 

What is clear is that Trump is clearly now in a position where he is changing America and indeed the world we have known since WW2. It is also increasingly likely that he is an unwitting tool of powerful business interests, of which Big Tech is the leader, and possibly indirectly of the “great powers” he is fond of, such as Russia and an “imperialistic brother” like Putin. In some ways, it is a game where all parties are leaders and tools, holding each other by the goatee, as the French saying goes, in what makes a sinister and world-damaging club.  Weakening America, both at home and abroad, by his poor style and decisions, also hurts the world we know as well as, naturally, Europe. The picture is so large that it takes some time to realise the extent of the multi-faceted damage while, with all things Trumpian, we may dangerously get used to his craziness over time, like many of his supporters have, creating a dangerous feeling of normality.  

The damage to America itself, including its own voting base, will be seen rather quickly at different levels. The gradual destruction of the Federal Government and traditional public service will have a serious impact at state level, including the Red ones, as services will no longer be federally funded in too many areas like education or health. The various political firings of officials at the Department of Justice combined with the massive “buyouts” (not to use the word termination) of many civil servants, including at the CIA, will damage the reputation, efficiency and even security of the US and its administration. Some segments of the US economy, like agriculture, that rely on huge swaths of undocumented but law-abiding workers, will have a terrible impact that even Red State farmers start worrying about (perhaps showbiz-announced mass deportations will prove too challenging to implement, thus reducing their bad impact.) Tariffs, that may look strong and good when announced, will result in higher inflation, as already seen, as Americans keep buying foreign goods or businesses need foreign parts to manufacture their own products. It would also appear that Trump wants to reward his extremist supporter groups and fund the protection of Christianity in a country where more than two thirds of its citizens are Christian. And now we know that assaulting the Capitol and killing police officers will be forgiven (if you do it for the current President, of course), putting the basic concepts of right and wrong in serious jeopardy. So far, many executive orders, some at times even breaching the Constitution, have been fought and rejected by the courts, but with time nothing guarantees that judicial power will hold, potentially leading to the gradual replacement of usual Western-type democracy by a Venezuelan model (no tariffs involved). 

These drastic changes are going hand-in-hand with some decisions affecting US foreign policy and its very key interests worldwide. It is clear that there may be a majority of Americans who do not care much about international affairs and are more focused on what matters to them directly at home. America is not alone in this respect even if one could relate this to an educational problem and its costs in “the country of the free”, all the more when too many are living lonely existences and rely only on easy-to-hear social media. Killing USAID is destroying American soft power which had helped the US to assume world leadership since the JFK era. Dealing with Russia on Ukraine without the latter and Europe involved is only temporarily but wrongly strengthening an existentially lost former great power while killing the basic cement of the Western world that is reflected in the historical and cultural bonds between America and Europe. A US-Russia-only dialogue to end the war in Ukraine only strengthens Moscow’s underwhelming position in the conflict and overall geopolitical stance while weakening greatly Europe and the Atlantic Alliance, not to mention Ukraine and its leadership. Anti-corruption regulations will be dismissed making global trade and investments going back to Far West times, stressing again Trump’s inherent “tool” nature. Going after allies – if not friendly neighbours like Canada – by wanting to absorb them or threatening a NATO member by the seizure of Greenland on security reasons combined with mineral resources gains is not exactly what Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush would have ever dared in terms of American standing, values and principles. The fight against climate change globally seems something from the past while “drill, baby, drill”, has become the White House song of the day, pleasing both the US oil industry and, for once, some allies like Saudi Arabia. And let’s not talk about making Gaza a US-protected if not owned “Riviera” by displacing all its Palestinian residents, news that was received as expected even by some of the most Trump-flexible countries in the region. These developments sadly speak for themselves and do not require complex analytical soul searching to see their craziness.                   

While stating Trump’s decisions and their impact, it is also key to realise how we got there and why. Trump was a very rich kid, inheriting $400 million from his father – quite a social gap with some of his MAGA base – helping him to launch his real estate empire that proved to be very unsuccessful beyond the great Trump Tower-like names, while at times less than financially clean. It is clear that his transactional nature came from his rather unusual business life. And many, like Robert De Niro, rudely but honestly see him as a “jerk” and a “moron” as an individual. He also always enjoyed surrounding himself with shady characters (like the infamous Roy Cohn) or now very “obedient first” individuals, a feature we blatantly see in his current team of under-impressive secretaries like Peter Hegseth, Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard or RFK Jr to name only a few. And his blatantly mixing family business interests with his presidency, as seen with his recent crypto initiative and the roles of his many relatives, is astonishing. Two recent examples speak for themselves: Melania Trump getting $40 million from Amazon’s Bezos, clearly a King’s courtier, for her “memoirs” or the appointment of the ex-convicted felon, father of his son-in-law Jared, as Ambassador to France, that could be a part of a great Hollywood movie script. There is however no doubt that he is a very gifted politician for our showbiz times, who has been a model for many populists in terms of style and messaging. And then, as a new development, Trump is also using the likes of Musk to do his bidding when it is easier, like when reshaping the public sector with a questionable and over-reaching DOGE and its team of subcontracted young tech bros or heavily dealing directly with German or British domestic politics (not that the flexible if not uber-opportunistic JD Vance, who will forever be remembered for his startling “threat from within” speech, did not meet the leader of the extreme right German AfD on the side of the Munich Security Conference, showing that MOs also evolve quite fast under Trump 2.0). 

Many observers of this developing drama feel that the 2026 mid-terms will correct things and see Congress in full control of the Democrats. For this, and in a normal scenario, the Democrats should wake up and think long and hard about their leadership and key programmes. Undocumented immigration, a bad thing which is often linked to cultural identity by its opponents, is never well-managed by liberal democrats the Western world over, given the sensitive feature attached to it, while diversity could also have been more sensibly supported and carried out in schools and businesses. The party also seems to be devoid of truly electable and inspiring leaders (Josh Shapiro needs to be followed) while the Republicans have had too many, even if the more acceptable ones by usual norms may be the likes of a rigid but highly professional Marco Rubio. The problem is that America’s new path does not prevent a constitutional crisis supported by a friendly Supreme Court when mid-terms suddenly become obsolete on the dubious grounds of enhanced efficiency (two years is a short time for any mandate as many, if not all, in the House of Representatives would agree.) Besides this sinister point, two years is enough to dismantle the architecture of US federal power and move away from America’s traditional leadership style with all the features we know. We may find ourselves by 2026 in a world where the US and China are both operating as great powers only, something the latter has worked hard to achieve for decades since Mao, while America nominally stays in the West but only in transactional ways. It is likely to be the next geopolitical picture of our world. Looking at the main great power rivalry to come, the US State Department last week removed the statement America did not support Taiwanese independence, an historical peace preserving stance, but it may simply be a “transactional” move reflecting our new times. 

Russia will keep being Russia, in search of its lost imperial past, combining aggressions when needed and high moral stances on the surface while working with lost states like Iran and North Korea no other key nations really want to deal with. Russia will always be an existential threat for Europe even if the former will increasingly be weak economically but also more dangerous as a result. In many ways, both China and Russia may to some extent be the winners of a short-sighted Trump 2.0 diplomacy as many countries, notably in Africa, Latin America or Asia if not eventually in some parts of Europe may eventually decide to switch strategic allegiance. (in some ways, the real winner of Trump 2.0 may become China if a smart Xi leadership decided to present a friendlier Beijing as a more viable strategic alternative to the US to many potential partners globally, this with Europe also reviewing that game-changing option in some areas.) It is also clear that some rising powers needing a feeling of protection from strong neighbours may also surprisingly adjust to Trump’s new transactional approach as recently seen with Modi’s India in DC regarding both combined trade and defence matters. Europe should see the Trump era also as a needed wake-up call and work on its key nature and especially on its defence in spite of all the natural divisions inherent to its national multiplicity and variety of strategic interests. There is no more excuse to hide behind history and feeling that American protection allows Europe and its nations to focus on the economy only. Defence is now a key feature of European existence, a new fact that many Europeans will have to learn how to live with and accept fully if they wish to survive as Europe or indeed as nations. Perhaps Trump 2.0 will prompt Britain and the EU to get more quickly closer to each other if not reunited at some point even if Trump is likely to work on dividing them by staying softer on London. 

At the very personal level, Trump 2.0 and its massively destructive changes hurt the French-born European I am as it kills what America always stood for in my life and helped me define myself. America was never perfect, but its values and principles helped me grow up as a child, thanks to the likes of John Wayne, Gary Cooper or Kirk Douglas, making me go there in my early twenties to helping me build over a few years who I became personally and professionally. It was a model of the idealised sort, but one that was strong and good. I want it back for all of us and the world. 

As already stated, Europe, while strengthening itself, will have to work with the growing American “opposition”-to-be to recreate the win-win community that is the Transatlantic Alliance based on shared historical and cultural values and principles. While the nightmare goes on, each of us in Europe should work hard with our many friends in America to help re-cementing our great partnership and make it even better. Trump should not last. Common sense needs to prevail.     

With warmest regards,

Serge 

The main challenges of democracy today and how to manage them

10/10/24

Dear Partners in Thought,

Democracy is the main issue of the day, given its fragile state, as shown with the various books on the topic from the great Anne Applebaum’s “Autocracy, Inc.” to Yale historian Timothy Snyder’s new “On Freedom” in line with his earlier famed “On Tyranny”.  With that in mind, I wanted to deal concisely with the key matter of ensuring democracy’s survival. In doing so, I decided to explore the main causes of Western democracy’s fragility in the 2020s while stressing the best ways to ensure its future. 

Democracy, which most of us in the West took for granted, is a very recent political system in the history of the world. We can all agree that the number of centuries where some form of democracy we can relate to appeared is very short. While we can be grateful to America and its founding fathers for giving us the roots of modern democracy in the 1770s, that great country is today experiencing some upheaval that would make the great Republican President Ronald Reagan, not known for his liberalism, turn many times in his grave when looking at what became of his “Grand Old Party”.

In a strange way, autocracies, including those with fake elections, have little hope for eventual democracy – not that it would ever be the goal of their leaderships – unless a coup happens or a strong leader suddenly and unexpectedly dies (a sad but crucial point for Russians and North Koreans with their very personalised power at the top). Autocracies, so well described by Applebaum, are not the main threat, short of war, to democracy as we know it in the West. The tactical advantage of autocracies over democracies is that they are easier to manage as there is no counterweight to the absolute leadership – and as such they can last for long. The key question today is whether democracies can last, given the odd ways they have operated over recent years. 

Democracies are always complex to manage. Their main challenge today is actually “within”. Democracies have slid into show business at election time and well before, mirroring Taylor Swift concerts, though often without the singing and performing excellence. Too many voters no longer focus on policies but like the fight and opportunity to express strong feelings – at times in a very necessary existential way as seen with MAGA hat wearers. Democracy is now often a forum for the easiest but wrong solutions to the most complex issues promoted by vote-grabbing populists, usually targeting electorates not always equipped to understand what really matters. 

To be fair, traditional parties of the centre left and centre right have not helped the democratic resolve in refusing to tackle valid societal problems that were often difficult culturally, like immigration, leaving open doors for populist parties and leaders in the US and across Europe. Tackling problems like immigration, a matter that angers many voters due to the resurgence of a once-forgotten national identity, is challenging for governments also dealing with the economy that often requires not necessarily cheaper but sometimes much-needed labour for the whole society to keep growing. And immigration can be a strange mix of illegal and usually perfectly legal individuals, while pet dogs happily keep going without being actually eaten as lately discovered in Ohio. 

The main challenge of Western democracy is the rising frustration and anger of many citizens at issues that have not been well-managed by traditional government parties, a trend fostered by the bad side of tech via social media that have gradually hurt independent thinking. Many voters started to follow social media that targeted the established old-fashioned elite, hoping that anti-elite populist newcomers were the answer, however untested and by and large unequipped to govern properly, lacking as they do the right tools and formation. One of the obvious threats posed by populists if they win key elections is clearly whether these will be the last ones, all the more given their closeness to or benign understanding of autocrats – as we see so often these days with populist leaders and the way they relate to Putin. However, and in some unexpected way, Italy’s Georgia Meloni became a rare example of a hard-right leader deciding to adopt a moderate and democratic stance at many levels once in power.     

The fact is that our democracies will always need a highly educated elite to give guidance to the wider and diverse electorate – or we should hope so. Hence both high education and proper selection are key and the way to ensure our old West can go on and thrive for its people on the basis it always has done. Even if a scary word for many, elitism is good in essence in a David Halberstam “The Best and the Brightest” kind of way, when he described the JFK team (I agree the historical point can be argued too). Elitism based on education and providing competence is not a shame, even if that elite will always be small in nature – as long as it represents and defends the interests of democratic voters. Elitism based on education, the latter that should be as well-spread as possible within society, also to drive for common sense in the political debate, should be welcome by all. 

There is also a need for traditional parties to acknowledge issues that are easily seized by the populists and start managing them more forcefully with results in mind, this including immigration, while knowing the complexity of such endeavours. Lastly, society with the assistance of governments should ensure that social media use by minors is controlled (including phones in primary and secondary schools), this via a multiple legal and parental approach, also to avoid teenagers being lost for hours in their rooms or walking the streets while watching their phones, making them easy prey for cheap populism later. One of the key features of democratic survival is to ensure younger generations are traditionally educated and can think on their own, even if enjoying the pleasures tech can provide. Common sense should be the driver of such policies, not ideology.     

There is no easy nor black and white solution to managing and strengthening democracy, but a suitable leadership and a focus on traditional education for the whole society, while avoiding the current pitfalls provided by social media, are among the best recipes for democratic success and happiness over the long term. 

Warmest regards

Serge