Tag: politics

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