Tag: politics

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