Search Results

Keir Starmer's first 100 days in office. Today officially marks the first 100 days of Keir Starmer and the Labour Party in government in the United Kingdom. The least we can say is that it has been a considerable mess, both in terms of substance and style. We are bitterly disappointed for all of us out there looking forward to a new type of governance and a breath of fresh integrity, competence and professionalism after the long, tired agony of the Tory Party under five successive Prime Ministers. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, but in the wee hours of July 5, it quickly became apparent that the Tories had lost the election instead of the Labour Party winning it. If only Keir Starmer had understood that from day one. Gaining the public's trust should never be taken for granted, particularly after his declarations throughout the election campaign and before that, where he depicted a perfect picture of integrity, competence and clear headiness. The Labour Party was ready for government and could be trusted with the country's fortunes. Lo and behold, the perfect oiled machine that never was quickly broke down. Governing is clearly more difficult than being in opposition, as decisions must ultimately be made, and accountability cannot be ignored. It is safe to say that Starmer and his team were prepared to take swift action immediately and had a clear plan on how to proceed. But your plan is only as good as its execution. Like any incoming government, Starmer and his team were quick and keen to blame the challenging economic climate on the past government and warned that many difficult decisions lay ahead. The new Chancellor immediately audited the fiscal inheritance swiftly carried out by the Treasury, showing a deficit of 22 billion £ for 2024/2025. Whether genuinely surprised or not, Reeves declared that such a large black hole resulted from the Tories' mismanagement of the economy and that she would be forced to make unpopular decisions to ready the ship. The first one being to substantially cut the winter fuel payment support of up to 300 £ for pensioners. It may well have been necessary to take such unpopular decisions, and that is part and parcel of being in government. However, focusing only on the situation's economics without considering and accounting for the political impact of such a decision was a grave mistake. The government gravely mismanaged the announcement of the measure. Being in government also means dealing, by definition, with unexpected events, such as the significant riots sparked by the horrific killing of three children at a Taylor Swift dance class in Stockton at the end of July. Based on far-right misinformation on social media, riots broke out all over England where far-right racist demonstrators took to the streets to vent their anger and, more importantly, their hatred and racism towards immigrants and all other non-white communities. Thanks to his prior experience as head of the Crown's Prosecution Services, Starmer quickly responded with a firm hand, declaring that the rioters would be pursued and held accountable with the full force of the law. However, the underlying situation in the prisons was dramatic, with a significant lack of available places that forced the government to release less serious offenders to make up for lost space. Although the unrest was eventually quelled, the government lost the opportunity to present its plans for the future as the Parliament had gone into recess, and their only communication was on the difficult times ahead and the tough but necessary measures that would be needed to remedy the situation. Doom and gloom were at the centre of the government's messaging. The second major issue was a spectacular own goal and went to the heart of the notion of a new, sleaze-free government focused on upholding the government to the highest of standards. It soon became public at the end of August that Keir Starmer and several other senior ministers had received gifts, primarily from one of the Labour Party's major donors, Lord Alli, in the form of free tickets to concerts, clothes and football tickets over 100'000 £ for Starmer himself and his family. Whilst such gifts were duly reported and not technically illegal, the perception of a holier-than-thou Prime Minister taking advantage of gifts was very damaging. Moreover, Starmer clumsily tried to justify the access to the executive area at the Emirates Stadium so that he could watch his beloved Arsenal play, but it was for security reasons. One such donation was to the tune of 2'485 £ for purchasing "multiple pairs of glasses - apparently up to 15 pairs". Starmer tried to maintain that such gifts were not out of the norm for a Prime Minister. Still, he should be well advised that former French Prime Minister François Fillon was entrapped in a similar suit for pay scandal, effectively terminating his political career back in 2017. This episode has damaged Starmer's reputation and, in my opinion, rightly so. The position of Prime Minister is challenging and requires sacrifices for the incumbent and the Prime Minister's family. However, the way each individual approaches this role and the responsibilities that go with it says a lot about the incumbent's character and, to a larger extent, the prevalent political culture. As a self-professed man of the people from a working-class background whose father was famously a "tool worker", Starmer should have remembered the well-known adage "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" and more so Caesar himself. He cannot emphasise his working-class background and, at the same time, accept a gift of not one, not two, but fifteen pairs of glasses (one for every second day of the month), especially if his government is imposing unpopular decisions on vulnerable people such as pensioners. The sense of entitlement and privilege does not sit well with most Labour voters and, indeed, of the public at large, a sentiment I wholeheartedly understand and support. Starmer belatedly tried to limit the damage by paying back some of the gifts, but such a reaction only reinforces the notion that such gifts were exaggerated. If any repayment were to be made, it should have been for all gifts or none. Sometimes I wish British politicians would be as discrete and boring as members of the Swiss Federal Council, who can walk home from work or take the train without being bothered or even recognised. Such a sense of entitlement is not part of the Swiss political culture, although it is far from me saying that all Swiss politicians are squeaky clean. Starmer has demonstrated his willingness to seize the initiative and to reset his management style and priorities. He has replaced his unpopular chief of staff and hopes that the next 100 days will be more clement for him and his government, thus demonstrating that the present difficulties have merely been teething problems. He can ill afford to let this first impression of disappointment become firmly entrenched in the British political psyche.

Keep on lying until you are blue (or orange) in the face. Source : "The Economist", Cover, October 2016   From a very young age, Trump understood that truth is relative. In the “Art of the Deal”, he says, “I call it truthful hyperbole” [1] to explain his philosophy of promotion and mostly self-promotion. As recently as July 2021, he mentioned in a speech in Florida, “If you say it enough and keep saying it, they’ll start to believe you.” Coincidentally, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, apparently stated: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” This is known as “the Big Lie” technique, which Hitler referred to specifically in Mein Kampf. However, he was using it primarily as a way to express his rabid antisemitism. [2] As we will see hereafter, this notion of the “Big Lie” will become very important to Trump at the end of his presidential mandate. All politicians are “economical with the truth”. However, Trump has perfected the art of lying like no other or, to use one of his favourite expressions, “the likes of which nobody has ever seen”. But herein lies the secret of his success. It is a practice he has adopted throughout his business career and probably even before. One must wonder if his affliction of bone spurs reflected reality or if it was a way to avoid being drafted for the Vietnam War. To understand the underlying causes of any particular series of events or to better seize the essence of a specific epoch, any thought process has to be based on facts. How these facts are interpreted or analysed leaves space for various or alternative opinions. However, despite Kellyanne Conway’s firm belief in “alternative facts”, [3] such a concept is logically impossible unless we are simultaneously alive and dead in the realm of quantum physics with Schrödinger’s cat. Sorry to break it to Kellyanne Conway, but her reference to “alternative facts” is neither new nor original. The classic Greek philosophers discussed the concept of alternative facts in detail. Aristotle believed that “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.” [4]  Simply put, the main characteristic of a fact is that it is demonstrably true, and thus, you can know it to be such. For Plato, facts are transcendent forms that constitute the basis of all knowledge, and importantly, they are not subjective and do not depend on the human mind to exist. Unfortunately, perception can corrupt the definition of facts, making perception a reality. Demagogues understand this all too well and contrive to reinvent facts and refashion reality either by manipulating the media or simply by repeating a falsehood over and over again. George Orwell recognised this risk in his famous “1984” novel, with the notion of “Newspeak” and the “Ministry of Truth”. Let us rely on Plato’s and Aristotle’s definitions of facts and avoid referring to “fake news” (ironically first coined in the political debate by Hilary Clinton only to be picked up by Donald Trump a few days later and then by constant repetition becoming an integral   part of his trademark vocabulary). The natural tendency to either vastly exaggerate reality or defend clear falsehoods may appear to be humorous or anecdotal when talking about the size of the crowd at his inauguration (although one can imagine that Sean Spicer did not consider it particularly funny at the time). Still, when it refers to a more fundamental issue, such as the results of an election, then the consequences are far more critical. Hence the perfect expression, “the Big Lie,” when referring to Trump’s apparent conviction that the 2020 election was rigged, respectively stolen. Trump is not particularly discrete regarding his strategy; he tends to announce his intentions clearly in advance. In anticipation of the 2020 elections, similar to his approach just before 2016, he repeatedly declared that he could only lose if the elections were rigged. In 2020, he had the advantage of blaming the many post-in ballots due to the COVID crisis. Once again, Bill Maher reflected on this and correctly saw this as evidence of Trump’s desire to cling to power by any means possible. Trevor Noah, host of The Daily Show at the time, also latched onto this: [5]  “A peaceful transfer of power is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy (…), And by Trump saying that he refuses to leave peacefully, he’s basically threatening a coup.” Little did he know then, but that threat soon became a reality after the election. Hannah Arendt  "Truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, and lies have always been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings." Cynics will say that Trump is not the first politician to lie and that lying is second nature to all people seeking public office. “No one has ever doubted that truth and politics are on rather bad terms with each other, and no one, as far as I know, has ever counted truthfulness among the political virtues.” [6]   Thus wrote Hannah Arendt in response to the international outcry against her book “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, where she coined the phrase “the banality of evil” after witnessing first-hand Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem in 1961. The German American historian and philosopher is well-known for her body of work detailing the origins of totalitarianism, having experienced it first-hand as a Jew forced to flee Nazi Germany in 1933. In her opinion, we can shout truth to power until we are blue (or orange) in the face, and people who seek truth, the so-called “truth-seekers” to use her terminology, are outliers and do not exist in the world of politics. Politics and truth do not speak the same language. Arendt wrote extensively on the subject, notably in an essay she wrote for the New York Review of Books on November 18th 1971, following the scandal of the Pentagon Papers, where she explains that contrary to a faulty memory, or being the victim of an illusion, the ability to deny in word and in thought whatever happens to be the actual truth is an “active, aggressive capability of ours”. Despite the difficulties and the quandary described above, Arendt also advocates for “making facts appeal to people who do indeed have different opinions. Because facts do not stand by themselves. (…) Conceptually, we may call truth what we cannot change. (…) metaphorically, it is the ground on which we stand and the sky that stretches above us.” Ironically, she would be horrified to discover that today one of the fastest-growing movements is “the flat earth movement”. Recent polling in 2016 showed that 6% of Americans were not sure the earth was not flat, and 1% believed it was flat. [7]  It seems that even Mother Earth is not safe from the most ridiculous and factually debunked conspiracy theories. Just as the flat earthers are adamant in their truth, Trump is consistent in the self-deception of the Big Lie, victim, as Arendt would say of” the combination of the arrogance of power and the arrogance of the mind”, i.e. an “utterly irrational confidence in the calculability of reality”. Is this the type of president best suited for defending democracy? One of the key points of Arendt’s theory is that moral outrage is not the best solution to lying in politics, as this is precisely what such lies try to achieve. Namely, it becomes part of the vicious circle whereby increased outrage encourages more outrageous lies, thus creating a world of defactualized politics. Simply calling out a politician for lying does not suffice and is counterproductive. Trump is a master of lying and mendacity and understands this too well. This is one reason why some networks, contrary to their approach in the 2016 campaign, have adopted a far more restrictive policy, and rightly so, in covering Trump’s speeches and declarations on his Truth Social platform. To mark the US Bicentennial, Arendt wrote likewise in the New York Review of Books in June  1975 an essay, “Home to Roost: A Bicentennial Address”, where she applies the idiomatic expression “chickens come home to roost” in the political field, meaning, in her own words, “it indicates the boomerang effect, the unexpected and ruinous backfiring of evil deeds on the doer”. She was referring to the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, but in today’s context, her last published words are particularly relevant. If she were alive today, she would be horrified at the emergence of the Trump phenomenon. When democracy is at stake and when the barbaric threat of fascism is at the gates, speaking truth to power, however futile it may be, is indispensable. Let the chickens come home to roost at Mar-a-Lago. [1]  ”The Art of the Deal”, p 60. [2]  “Big Lie”, European Centre for Populism Studies , www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/big-lie/ [3]  Interview on ”meet the press”, MSNBC, January 22, 2017 [4]  Metaphysics, 1011b25 [5]  Laura Zornosa: ”Bill Maher, Bernie Sanders and Trevor Noah fear Trump won’t leave if he loses”, Los Angeles Times , September 28, 2020, www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-09-28/bill-maher-bernie-sanders-and-trevor-noah-fear-trump-wont-leave-if-he-loses [6]  Truth and Politics by Hannah Arendt; Initially published in The New Yorker, February 25, 1967, and reprinted with minor changes in Between Past and Future (1968) and The Portable Hannah Arendt edited by Peter Baier (2000) [7]  “Did you know that 1% of Americans believe the Earth is flat?”, Gazette 2.0,  July 20, 2022, www.gazette20.com/post/did-you-know-that-1-of-americans-believe-the-earth-is-flat

Donald Trump is showing us his true nature. The US presidential election is less than a month away. As a non-US citizen, all I can do is to look on in horror at the abysmal spectacle on view in what is supposed to be "the beacon of democracy" in the world. In less than a decade, Donald Trump has morphed from a failed businessman to a consequential figure in American politics, a former President seeking re-election as a populist and demagogue who is on the cusp of making a remarkable comeback despite being, amongst other things, a convicted felon. Since the beginning of the year, I have tirelessly rung the alarm bells and issued a symbolic "call to arms" both by self-publishing a detailed book on the topic and by developing my themes on the pages of this blog. One of my favourite quotes is from Charles Dickens, who wrote an amazing novel comparing the impact of the French Revolution on London and on Paris. The first sentence of “A Tale of Two Cities” is one of the most famous in English literature: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair (...)".   The notion of "the best of times" and "the worst of times" in a seemingly paradoxical duality resonates in today’s turbulent world. As individuals, we can retreat from the world and follow Voltaire’s example of “cultivating one’s own garden” and pretend that “everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”. I chose a different approach, namely to comment on the chaotic world we live in and, by so doing, emphasise the values of truth, integrity and tolerance that are the cornerstone of living together in peace and harmony.   I am under no illusion that my insignificant contribution will have any real impact on current affairs. To paraphrase Governor Sarah Huckabee (not one of my role models), self-publishing a political book in Europe on the US presidential election is a very humbling experience. Nonetheless, even if one person reads my book or signs up for my website, it will be a tiny victory, and a minuscule step forward in defending what I believe is essential in today’s environment: the very Swiss sense of compromise, humility and tolerance.   Each and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I recognise that my marked political views will not be everybody’s cup of tea. But ultimately, truth and facts matter, and in a period where disinformation rules the internet, it is worthwhile, methinks, to brush up on our knowledge of history and understand that although history does not repeat itself per se, it often rhymes.   My ten years living in Warsaw, Poland, have demonstrated the importance of history and the impact it continues to have on a nation’s population. Whilst Warsaw is a booming megapolis, it is uncomfortably at the forefront of a potentially major fault line in European politics, less than two hours in all directions from Kaliningrad and its nuclear weapons, Belarus and its puppet regime, and Ukraine, where civilians continue to pay a heavy price to Russian dreams of imperial expansion.   My current focus is on the forthcoming US presidential elections as “when somebody sneezes in Washington, D.C., the whole world catches a severe cold." I have a visceral dislike of extreme right-wing extremism and believe that “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, albeit a team of ducks with red hats and confederate flags on their tails, carrying tiki torches and waddling in harmony to a distinctively Wagnerian tune”. However, I am not singularly obsessed with one Donald J. Trump (although it is good to understand his true nature) and hope to exchange views on a complete range of topics, such as the vitality of Polish democracy, European politics and other such important matters. Recent events have tempered my enthusiasm and increased the urgency of my argumentation's underlying central thesis and purpose. Donald Trump is running not as an authoritarian or a wannabe dictator; he is running as an old-fashioned fascist. This statement is not made lightly, and I have justified this qualification all throughout my recent writings. Naturally, history does not identically repeat itself. Comparison runs the risk of being unreasonable and verging on false equivalence, in particular when it comes to comparing people to such an abhorrent figure as Adolf Hitler (although Trump's running mate did not hesitate to refer to him as "America's Hitler"). But sometimes we have to call a spade a spade, and Trump has wrapped himself in the mantle of fascism adapted to the current times and supported by his numerous sycophants and supporters; he is redefining what it is to be a fascist in today's world. In the last days of the campaign, the man's depraved cruelty stands out. Lying is second nature to him, and he almost exclusively distorts the truth to his advantage during his rallies and staged interviews with friendly outlets. He shuns any exposure to an environment of fact-checking and accountability as he lurches toward the finishing line. We have all become so accustomed to his insanity as he constantly pushes the envelope further and further along, seeking to outmatch his own extremism with each passing statement. A careful analysis of his "Truth social" messages demonstrates the degree of abject depravity he has fallen to and the extent to which he believes his propaganda is in an increasingly dangerous vicious cycle. As usual, Trump is advancing in clear view of his opponents and not trying to disguise his intentions. His probable defeat will be attributed not to his exceptional weaknesses and faults as a human being, candidate, and prospective president but to an allegedly corrupted and rigged electoral system. He will not accept defeat, graciously or not. Although an exact repeat of January 6, 2021, is not imaginable, Trump and his enablers plan to succeed now where they failed four years ago. There are many ways to skin a cat. With the help of a myriad of lawyers and experts, Trump and Co. will assuredly come up with an alternative plan to deny the American people the results of the election if they are not in his favour. To say that such a scenario is unrealistic because the democratic guardrails stood firm in 2021 ignores the fact that the exact same guardrails are not set in concrete, and with the continued attacks against all the institutions of American democracy over the past four years, coupled with a compliant Supreme Court does not bear well for the future. Trump firmly believes in the famous adage that "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again". The aforementioned quote of  the first line of Charles Dicken's "A Tale of Two Cities", or at least the first half of the sentence. To be thorough and complete, the second part of the sentence is: "We had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." Dickens wrote the seminal English novel on the French Revolution, which, by definition, is a period of the utmost turmoil and fundamental change that has forever marked history. The main message of his novel is to encourage his audiences to look at the past and the present with an open mind and to understand that there are always different perspectives on the same event, depending on one's vantage point and beliefs. The risk of giving too much credence to the "noisiest authorities" (in today's words, perhaps pundits or commentators ?) is that exaggeration and hyperbole win the day.  Let us avoid falling into the same trap. The rise of Trump and Trumpism is not irrevocably the end of the world or the apocalypse; it is the expression of legitimate concerns and fears of American voters looking for a solution to their everyday problems. It would also be wrong to dismiss Trumpism as a traditional political movement that fits quaintly into the classical political divide. Trumpism is an extreme political philosophy that preys on fear and lies, and we have to call a spade a spade and describe the movement for what it is. By the same token, refusing to look the evil of fascism in the face and accept it in all its horror and absurdity would be a significant mistake and lead us most definitely into darkness.   As a society, we must decide which future we want for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. The beauty of democracy is that we can determine that future, and the American people are incredibly privileged to have that essential freedom. The decision made on November 5 will have significant consequences, and all may not be resolved until the inauguration day on January 20, 2025. Those who understand and relish the freedom to vote and the ability to decide our future will join the pro-democracy movement and will not vote for Trump. As mentioned, I cannot vote in the forthcoming election. However, it does not take a genius, or even a stable genius, to know my thoughts. Ultimately, the American people, in their infinite wisdom and their majority, both popular and in the electoral college, will choose freedom rather than the alternative. I have faith in the American ideals and that the American people will remember that they are already a great nation and that they can build a better future with their friends and allies around the world to defend the principles that we have collectively fought for since the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, that Charles Dickens so skilfully described. And thereby defeat the depraved cruelty of Donald Trump and send him back whence he came.

Once a President, always a President Lest we forget, the president’s main responsibility is to “ faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his or her Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The presidential oath is a foundational element of the Constitution. It confers upon the incumbent a quasi-sacred responsibility that supersedes all other roles of the presidency. The presidential oath was a formality in the past, but it has been upheld since the beginning of the American Republic. That is, until the unprecedented presidency of Donald J. Trump. All other things being equal, the events of January 6, 2021, and the elated conspiracy to deny the American people the results of a lawful and democratic election should be at the centre of the 2024 election. Politics aside, when an individual goes down the path of insurrection, there is no coming back—or so you would think. Once a president, always a president. All presidents carry the burden of the nation’s moral authority, even when they have left office. In exceptional circumstances, they must exercise this moral authority not as partisan politicians but as worthy individuals who have experienced the nation’s highest office. To shy away from such moral authority is not an option.  Today, just over a month before the elections, is such a time. Today, America finds itself in an unprecedented state of division, a stark contrast to its past unity. Donald Trump’s political discourse is beyond the pale and should not be considered simple rhetoric. If there is one lesson we have learned from the past, it is that tyranny does not appear out of thin air. It needs demagogues to vehicle its dark intentions. Trump’s language is becoming more and more extreme as the moment of truth approaches. He is prepared to sacrifice America’s honour, dignity and valour on the sacrifice of his vanity and, by doing so, threaten the very foundation of the American Constitution. His vicious and repugnant calls to dehumanise whole parts of society harken back to a practice that led to the extermination of over six million people during the last World War. Let there be no doubt that such a situation is not an exaggeration or political fearmongering. It si an unrefutable and objective fact. Trump’s language serves a clear purpose to take away the freedoms of all Americans. His only disadvantage is that it probably sounded better in the original German. That is why all living US presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, must stand up and say enough is enough. It is now incumbent on them to take an unequivocal position in favour of American democracy and state that Donald J. Trump is unfit for office and that the only vote possible is a vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. Barely two years before the 250th Celebration of the Declaration of Independence, duty requires such action. This call to arms, in a metaphorical sense, is of the utmost importance to ensure that the 250th anniversary in 2026 will not be celebrated under the dark cloud of Trumpian tyranny.

Harris should Follow Poland's Example.   The American bald eagle has much to learn from the Polish white-tailed eagle. Both countries boast a proud democratic heritage, albeit with different results. During the 16th to the 18th centuries, Poland had the unusual practice of electing its monarchs, which ultimately led to its downfall, the three partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the end of the existence of the state until the rebirth of the Republic of Poland in 1918 — a traumatic 123 years of domination by neighbouring powers that define modern Poland today. Add into the mix the Second World War and the dual invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, followed by 40-plus years of communism; one can forgive Poland if it needs to go to therapy as a nation with the century-old fight for existence, survival and ultimate democracy against oppression from its neighbours firmly embedded in its DNA. The more recent events in Poland show a path forward for the United States. The democratic resurgence in Poland following the parliamentary elections on October 15th 2023, with the victory of the centre-right coalition led by Donald Tusk, is an example to follow. Poland is a large and influential country in Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union per se. Since 2015, it has been governed by a far-right party, Law and Justice, dominated by Jaroslaw Kaczynski, twin brother of the Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who died tragically in the April 2010 plane crash in Smolensk, Russia. PIS was re-elected in 2019 for a second four-year term. Their eight years in power were characterised by the implementation of a far-right program involving a total ban on abortion, major backsliding on a commitment to liberal democratic values, notably with significant changes in the judicial system that caused a conflict with the EU and the politicisation of all major public companies including the state media. The model that PIS intended to follow was that of Orbán in Hungary. Still, given the size of the country and its strategic place within the EU and on the Eastern border of NATO, a shift towards an illiberal democracy was felt even more keenly. After winning two parliamentary elections as the head of the Civic Platform party in 2007 and 2011, Donald Tusk made a strategic move that would have significant implications for him personally and for Poland. Tusk resigned from his role as Prime Minister to take office as President of the European Council (he was formally nominated President of the European Council on December 1st, 2014). The Civic Platform party subsequently lost the 2015 elections under the new leadership of Ewa Kopacz. Tusk served for five years in Brussels before returning to Poland in 2021 to take over the leadership of the Polish opposition once again.  The latest polls just before the 2023 election predicted a very close race, with PIS better positioned to form a coalition government with the help of the nationalist party “Konfderacja”. The campaign was ruthless, with the ruling PIS party and its leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, accusing Donald Tusk of wanting to subjugate the country to both Germany and Russia. Kaczynski presented his party’s program as the catholic, nationalist alternative to Tusk’s liberal program. Only PIS would defend Poland as a strong, independent and sovereign nation-state. The traditional family unit (with father and mother), the right to life (including the unborn) and the defence of traditional values (excluding LGBT rights) were the main focus of the government’s program after two successive terms in office. To ensure the government’s victory, state TV and public media pulled no punches in promoting the government’s views and propaganda. TVP, the national TV channel, commands a viewership of over 3.5 million, representing 40% of the national news audience, of whom several million have no access to alternative news channels. The government went so far as to reduce the petrol price by more than 12% in the run-up to the election through the state-owned Orlen company. The day after the election, the prices suspiciously rose again. [i] All such measures were to no avail. The opposition coalition won an outright majority with over 54% of the votes, resulting in 248 seats out of 460 in the lower house of Parliament, the Sejm. The main opposition parties led by Tusk decided not to unite under the common banner of Tusk’s party (the Civic Platform), but each party kept its political identity. The two other parties, a new centre party, “The Third Way”, and a left-wing party, “The Left”, campaigned on their specific values with a clear understanding that all three parties were in opposition to PIS and that they would form a governmental coalition after the elections if they won enough seats. This tactical approach, campaigning separately while promising to form an anti-PIS coalition, enabled voters of different sensitivities to declare their opposition to PIS without feeling locked in advance in a political straitjacket. Each party maintained its identity, focusing on various constituencies. Tusk and the leaders of the other two opposition parties campaigned in opposition to PIS in defence of democracy, adopting a heart-shaped logo in the national colours as the emblem and symbol of their love not only of the country but of liberal democratic values. The “march of a million hearts” organised a few weeks before the election featured the biggest anti-government protest since the fall of communism and galvanised the opposition. The messaging was both anti-PIS and critical of the current situation but also adopted a positive, optimistic outlook for the future – aimed in this respect at the younger generations. The use of the heart as a symbol of the coalition’s campaign that was present at every opportunity, including on Tusk’s white shirt (strategically positioned over his breast pocket) that he consistently wore throughout the campaign, crystalised the positive message that the opposition wanted to convey, namely that the Nationalists cannot highjack the Polish flag as their exclusive property. Love of country can also be the purvey of the opposition, symbolising a positive, tolerant and caring outlook for all Poles. Modern politics is also about branding, and the heart symbol that worked so well in Poland is a universal symbol that can also be effective in the US, hence the example above. The turnout for the election was historically high at 74.4 %, with over 85% in Warsaw. More people under 30 voted than people over 60. This is a definite blueprint for the US campaign against Trump in 2024. There are several key learning points for the pro-democracy forces in the US, generally, and the Democrat party in particular. The main lesson is “Do not let the pro-democracy coalition fracture.” Anne Appelbaum, [ii]  writing in the Atlantic, stated: “Donald Tusk, the leader of the Civic [iii] Coalition, pointedly used the language of civic patriotism rather than angry nationalism. Thousands of volunteers came together to organize election-monitoring teams. Hundreds of thousands of people marched in two major demonstrations in Warsaw, carrying Polish and European Union flags; others joined a series of big public meetings around the country. The existence of three opposition parties meant that different messages were heard by different parts of the electorate, on the center-right as well as the center-left. Some of the candidates attacked PiS. Some used the language of unity and called for an end to polarization.” As a first step, the coalition that carried Biden to the Oval Office in 2020 has to be secured. Tusk was successful in Poland because he gained the confidence of two critical demographics: young people and women. In 2020, Biden made gains with suburban voters compared to Hilary Clinton in 2016. His coalition was broad and consisted of a wide and racially diverse voter base united by a deep opposition to Donald Trump. The voters were looking for a unifying figure after four years of chaos under Donald Trump, and the unique conditions of the 2020 elections in the middle of the pandemic favoured Biden as voters were looking for somebody who could tackle the crisis, something that Trump was not able to do. Biden’s coalition was comprised of clear majorities of college graduates, women, urban and suburban voters, young people and Black Americans, as well as moderate voters, including Republicans opposed to Trump. In terms of racial division, 37% of Biden’s supporters were of colour and 63% white (whereas Trump’s voters were 86%). [iv] Before Biden's withdrawal from the race, the conditions for 2024 are very different. he electorate has had time to forget the chaos under Trump. The mere fact that the election would have probably figured the same two individuals as in 2020 would have induced a lot of fatigue and dampenedhe fierce opposition to Trump that prevailed in 2020. This phenomenon of anti-Trump burnout [v] is a drag on the enthusiasm and energy of liberals. It would have been difficult for Biden to sustain the anti-Trump energy. The 2020 election was already portrayed as the most important election of all time and a battle for democracy for the soul of America. It would have been dficult to fight the 2024 election on the same terms. In addition, Trump is making inroads amongst black and Hispanic voters, traditionally a stronghold of the Democratic party. [vi] The outrage against Trump that unified such a diverse coalition of voters in 2020 needed to be actualised for 2024. A new potentially potent factor is the issue of abortion framed in a larger context of personal freedom and liberties under threat from Trump. The major uncertainty lies in how Trump’s legal problems will play out if he goes to trial before the elections and, if so, in how many cases. But the major overiding game changer was Biden's decision to withdraw from the race and allow his Vice President to pick up the torch. As discussed previously, one part of the 2020 coalition is under threat, namely young people. Biden’s advanced age was a major problem for younger people who failed to connect with somebody of Biden’s age, and trying to appeal to them by joining TikTok was risky. Biden couldn't reinvent himself and make himself younger by dressing in the style favoured by younger people. Men over fifty wearing ripped-up tight jeans and leather jackets are not particularly credible (and Biden wiswely did not fall into this trap). The same applies to social media. However, Biden's problem with younger people went far beyond style and appearance. His foreign policy, in particular regarding Israel and the Palestinian question, was a significant issue not only for Americans of Muslim and Arab background but for younger people in general. Harris, on the other hand, has been a tremendous success on TikTok, gaining traction almost immediately. Her unique style of dressing (e.g. Converses and pantsuits) has gone down well with the younger generation, and she has been able to recapture the youth spectacularly. The enthusiasm amongst the younger voters in her favour demonstrates their need and desire for change. Harris has astutely capitalised on this by focusing on "a new way forward" and "we're not going back". The fight for the "soul of the country" has taken backstage, and the message and tone of the campaign have radically changed. Harris can learn from Tusk to re-engage and secure Biden's 2020 coalition and take it one step further. The Polish coalition was successful precisely as it recognised and emphasised that it was not a uniform coalition. The main party in Tusk’s coalition is the Civic Platform, which has a classic centre-right program. However, the two other members of his coalition are from different political horizons. The Third Way is a centrist party that promotes a new way of politics based on a more moderate conservative platform. As its name suggests, the third and final coalition partner is the Left, a centre-left party focussing on social democracy. Each party of the coalition fought the election under its colours and was, therefore, able to rally a large part of the electorate to its common cause: upholding the rule of law and safeguarding Polish democracy seen to be under threat from the PIS government. Harris can extend Biden's coalition to include the anti-Trump Republicans more formally, which goes beyond what happened in 2020. The main difference here is, once again, what happened on January 6 2021. The Republicans who opposed Trump after that as a matter of principle may have been pushed out of Congress and exiled from the Republican party. But people such as Liz Cheney still command a lot of respect amongst conservative voters, and Biden has the opportunity to work with Cheney and Republicans of her kind in a coordinated and concerted manner. In 2020, the primary motivator was getting rid of Trump. In 2024, the emphasis needs to be a more upbeat message, not only in favour of democracy per se, which remains a somewhat theoretical concept for a large part of the electorate, but also in favour of the constitution and the rights enshrined therein, which is a more positive message based on individual rights and freedom, not only abortion rights. Hence t, the focus on "freedom" has been recaptured by Harris and used in a larger sense. The new 2024 coalition cannot only be an anti-Trump coalition. It has to become a pro-constitution coalition. This is a subtle but essential difference, as the threat to American democracy needs to be rooted in a historical basis that every American can identify with and understand. It also has the added advantage of covering a broad political spectrum, going from conservative Republicans such as Liz Cheney to liberal progressives such as Bernie Sanders. From a psychological perspective, it is always easier to favour something rather than be against it. Dick Cheney's recent endorsement of Kamala Harris, alongside his daughter Liz, is a prime example of this phenomenon. The opportunity is there for the taking. After Trump’s sweeping victory on Super Tuesday at the beginning of March, Cheney released a biting statement unequivocally: “ The GOP has chosen. They will nominate a man who attempted to overturn an election and seize power. We have eight months to save our republic & ensure Donald Trump is never anywhere near the Oval Office again.” [vii]  She also demonstrated the seriousness of her intent by announcing the creation of a new political action committee (PAC), named after a quote from Lincoln, “The Great Task” [viii] described as “a multi-candidate PAC (…) that is focused on reverence for the rule of law, respect for our Constitution, and a recognition that all citizens have a responsibility to put their duty to the country above partisanship. The Great Task is designed to educate and mobilize Americans in a unified effort to ensure that our Republic endures.” The fight for democracy framed as the fight for the Constitution rather than simply getting rid of Trump allows to not only focus on Trump as a flawed individual but also places the Republican party and all of Trump’s supporters at the centre of the debate as a toxic movement that needs to be defeated as such. Focusing solely on Trump allows the far-right America First/MAGA movement to thrive under new leadership in the eventuality that Trump is defeated. An additional positive effect is deflecting the conversation from Biden as an individual. The pro-constitution movement, represented by the Democrats and allies, is destined to secure the long-term future of the American system of liberal democracy with the Constitution as its cornerstone. The focus on the Constitution matters. With his wisdom and experience, Biden becomes the custodian of the Constitution and can pass the torch to the next generation of pro-constitution politicians. The first major step in this process was his giving up power in favour of Kamala Harris. On the eve of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence that gave rise to the Constitution of 1787, it is a message that makes sense and that many Americans can enthusiastically embrace. In essence, just as Donald Tusk created a powerful new social movement in Poland, Vice President HArris can firmly establish a long-lasting social movement in the US in favour of constitutional democracy. The short-term goal of defeating Trump in November is primordial, but the tail of Trumpism is long, and there must be a long-term strategy. JD Vance has been crowned the heir to Trumpism, and he will remain a threat after the election even if Trump loses. After a tumultuous summer, the stage is set. The election will be between a disgraced, twice impeached, and quadruply-indicted former president who is liable for fraud and sexual assault “akin to rape” and a current vice president who not only was part of the administration that has a significant track record in bringing back the economy from the brink of the COVID abyss, with over 3.2 million jobs created post COVID, exceptional GDP growth [ix]  and experience in foreign affairs allowing to navigate the troubled international environment, but moreover who represents a generational change and a path forward in a new direction. The Center for American Progress illustrated the strength of the American economy across seven indicators, namely inflation, energy prices, gross domestic product (GDP), the unemployment rate, the long-term unemployment rate, the 2023 International Monetary Fund (IMF) GDP forecast, and the 2023 IMF unemployment rate forecast.  [x] Donald Tusk had the advantage of running against an incumbent administration. Trump has been out of office since his outrageous coup attempt in January 2021, and he benefits from the short-term memory of the American electorate. Past presidents are viewed more fondly after leaving office, and in Trump's case, even more so as he has managed to convince many Republicans that the 2020 election was unfair and that he was robbed of a second term. The "Big Lie" is so big and has been repeated so many times that it has burrowed itself into voters' minds, causing irreparable damage. The Polish example also demonstrates how difficult it is to rebuild liberal democracy after eight years of a government that was committed to moving towards authoritarianism. Eight years of an anti-liberal right-wing government resulted in a fractured and divided society, where the political discourse is aggressively focused on attacking the opposition's very reason for being and promoting hate, fear-mongering and intolerance. Sound familiar? Many independent judges and professional civil servants have been replaced by government lackeys and stooges with unquestionable loyalty to the governmental dogmatic policies, pushing back on social advances and curbing freedom at all levels of society. Tusk understands the immensity of the task and does not underestimate the efforts required to repair a modern democracy that has been systematically undermined for eight years. The new prime minister refers to fighting back with "an iron broom". [xi] Tusk can rely on the support of women and young people, who were an essential part of his coalition that enabled him to win the elections. This important constituency understood too well the implications of a government obsessed with banning their most fundamental rights, such as abortion. The PIS government first introduced extreme anti-abortion legislation eliminating all exceptions so that, in the words of Jaroslaw Kaczynski, "to ensure that even very difficult pregnancies, when the child is condemned to death, is severely deformed, will end in birth, so that the child can be christened, buried, given a name." [xii] After unsuccessfully attempting to impose such extreme measures legislatively, the government resorted to introducing the ban via the constitutional court, similar to what happened in the US with the reversal of Roe vs. Wade by the Supreme Court. The resulting protests in 2020 were the largest since the fall of communism. They were met with a violent crackdown by the government, which encouraged their ultra-far-right supporters to defend the nation with "a national guard" to protect the Catholic Church from riots. [xiii]  The COVID pandemic dampened the protests, and in January 2021, the ruling became the law of the land. The demonstrations failed to prevent the implementation of the restrictive ban, but it had a far-reaching consequence that would ultimately come back to haunt the PIS government. The protests were built on a social movement based on a new generation of women and young people becoming involved in matters that were important to them. The politicisation of this demographic led to the historically high turn-out in the parliamentary elections of October 2023 and tipped the balance in favour of the opposition. A final lesson for the US is that the far-right will not simply disappear and ride off into the sunset despite electoral defeat. The PIS government delayed the transfer of power to Tusk for as long as possible – although, despite many rumours – there were no concrete efforts to prevent him from taking office. PIS remains a powerful force to be reckoned with primarily since the presidency is still held by the far-right and has the constitutional authority to thwart and delay any reforms initiated by the new government. The next presidential election is due in May 2025 and will be the next important step in the rebirth of democracy in Poland. The fight against the far-right is a long-term venture and must be considered as such. The tail of illiberal democracy à la Kaczynski is just as long as the tail of Trumpism. Trump’s coup attempt and his “Big Lie” are so outrageous that they have completely erased from the voters’ minds the single most disastrous and impactful series of presidential actions, or rather lack thereof, where dereliction of duty was deliberately declared official government policy. The woeful attitude of Trump throughout the COVID pandemic was directly responsible for numerous unnecessary deaths. [xiv]  He repudiated science, downplayed the threat of COVID,  and made mask-wearing a political issue by refusing to wear one as it made him look weak. [xv]  A lack of a coordinated federal strategy made matters worse. Exceptional times required exceptional measures, and it was the Democrats who, under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, pushed through a significant public spending program that prevented the worst off from being written off both figuratively and literally. When President Biden took office in January 2021, his priority was to tackle the COVID crisis, and further legislation was passed as the “American Rescue Plan” stimulus program worth 1.9 trillion $. Not a single Republican supported this important stimulus program. The price to pay was inflation, which became a major issue from 2021 to 2023 (inflation peaked at 7% in 2021 before trending downwards, with 6.5% in 2022 and 3.4% in 2023). 167 The Federal Reserve increased interest rates (from 0.25% in February  2022 to 5.5%) to battle inflation, negatively affecting mortgage rates. 168 In terms of comparison, the inflation rate in Poland was respectively 5.1%, 14.3%, and 11.6% in 2021, 2022, and 2023. However, the recent rate cut by 0.5% signals that the fight against inflation has been won and that it is time to focus on the unemployment rate. Credit must be given to the Biden/HArris administration for achieving the holy grail of economic policies, i.e. a soft landing after a major recession. In the run-up to the Polish election, Tusk marked the policy differences between his coalition and the government, declaring that the election was “a choice between two futures”. Differences were particularly marked in the area of social policy where PIS had followed in power, a hard-line policy with a de-facto ban on abortion, and a strong anti-LGBTQ policy (the infamous “LGBTQ free zones”). Tusk, on the contrary, promised to promote women’s writes with the reintroduction of abortion up to 12 weeks, civil partnerships for same-sex couples and the legal enshrinement of in-vitro fertilisation, termination and contraception rights as fundamental rights. As the Ohio rights initiative demonstrated, there is cross-party popular support for abortion rights at the state level (although the state Republican parties may be of an anti-abortion Trumpian view), and the Harris campaign understands this all too well. Harris herself has been a strong advocate for reproductive rights as vice president and, as a candidate, has continuously emphasised this message. The difficulty for Harris is to counteract the feeling of the electorate who do not appreciate the economic advantages of the Biden/Harris policies and who do not credit them sufficiently for reducing healthcare and costs of major types of medicines or for achieving an increase in real wages that outstrip inflation, and of a net increase of job creation reflecting an ongoing strong labour market. People only see the increase in gas prices and mortgage rates, as well as the increase of prices in grocery stores, without considering the increase in real wages, which, by the way, are the result of the most pro-union president in recent history. [xvi] Harris is making progress in this area, shortening the gap between her and Trump on the economic credibility front and taking the risk of taking the offensive specifically in this area by presenting a detailed policy plan on September 28. She also has the support of a genuine billionaire, Mark Cuban, who is enthusiatically supporting her and acting as her surrogate. Harris understands that her task is to be much more vocal about past accomplishments whilst changing the tone and focus of her future policies. It is all about credibility based on tangible facts that people can relate to. Focusing only on protecting democracy without tying it to concrete day-to-day consequences will not work. As a one-time adviser of Obama, David Axelrod recently said messaging about democracy is for those with “privilege” not to worry about inflation, [xvii]  adding for good measure, “I’m pretty certain in Scranton they’re not sitting around their dinner table talking about democracy every night.” [xviii]  “Kitchen table” issues matter. Harris is faced with a similar public perception problem regarding the Biden/Harris immigration policy. Taking advantage of anecdotal crimes committed by illegal immigrants, Trump has coined a new phrase to attack the incumbent president: ”Biden Migration Crime”. When Harris replaced him at the top of the ticket, Trump lost no time at all, branding her as the "Border Czar". True to his original message from 2015, Trump falsely claims that “millions and millions” of criminals and terrorists are pouring over the border illegally and that the crime rates in US cities are skyrocketing due to this massive influx of migrants. Once again, the facts are very different. When Biden took office, the COVID-related Title 42 rules allowed to turn away migrants on the grounds of preventing the spread of COVID that Trump had put in place in March 2020 were extended until May 2023, thus curbing illegal immigration at the border. Nonetheless, the numbers shot up as these provisions were no longer applied to unaccompanied minors. In 2021, 2022 and 2023, the number of illegal immigrants has been 1.7 million, 2.2 million and 2 million. [xix]   On an anecdotal basis, horrific crimes are committed by undocumented immigrants, such as the killing of college student Laken Riley in Georgia. However, as terrible as these incidents are, national data shows that there is no evidence of migrant-driven crime in the US. [xx] Tusk prevailed by countering the government's nationalistic rhetoric, which emphasised division and social repression, by presenting a future of hope built on the support of “a million hearts.” Harris is attempting to inspire similar heartfelt support by addressing the younger generations and giving them the inspiration and passion that so decisively favoured Tusk in Poland. The notion of "Joy" and "the politics of joy" has taken centre stage. Ultimately, the fight against authoritarianism is not only a tale of two eagles but also a tale of two Donalds. [i] “Polish state oil giant Orlen’s wholesale fuel prices begin to rise after pre-election drop”, Notes from Poland (NFP) , October 19, 2023, https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/10/19/polish-state-oil-giant-orlens-wholesale-fuel-prices-begin-to-rise-after-pre-election-drop/ [ii]  Anne Applebaum is a Pulitzer Prize winner and renown specialist on Polish and Central Eastern politics and is married to the current Polish foreign minister. [iii]  Anne Applebaum: “Poland Shows That Autocracy Is Not Inevitable”, The Atlantic , October 16, 2023, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/poland-parliamentary-election-autocracy-tusk/675656/ [iv] https://apnews.com/article/how-did-joe-biden-win-election  Josh Boak and Hannah Fingerhut: “AP VoteCast: How did Biden do it? Wide coalition powered win”, Associated Press (AP) , November 7, 2020, https://apnews.com/article/how-did-joe-biden-win-election-a493c68b6b947c5f90f36efef76d13c2 [v]  Katie Glueck: “Anti-Trump Burnout: The Resistance Says It’s Exhausted”, The New York Times , February 19, 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/us/politics/trump-resistance-democrats-voters.html [vi]  Jason L. Riley: “Biden’s Worst Nightmare: Blacks and Hispanics for Trump”, The Wall Street Journal , March 5, 2024, www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-worst-nightmare-blacks-and-hispanics-for-trump-economy-2024-presidential-election-fbbe674c [vii]  Ewan Palmer: “Donald Trump Faces New Republican Threat”, Newsweek , March 7, 2024, www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-liz-cheney-pac-great-task-1876834 [viii]   https://greattask.com [ix]  Neil Irwin: “U.S. winning world economic war”, Axios , January 31, 2024, www.axios.com/2024/01/31/us-economy-2024-gdp-g7-nations [x]  “7 Reasons the U.S. Economy Is Among the Strongest in the G7”, The Center for American Progress ”, July 25, 2023, www.americanprogress.org/article/7-reasons-the-u-s-economy-is-among-the-strongest-in-the-g7/ [xi]  Maciej Kisilowski: “Poland’s ‘iron broom’ shows that democrats can bite back”, The Finacial Times , January 15, 2024, https://www.ft.com/content/6d526816-8f35-47ef-90af-8b8950840021 [xii]  “Pushing for abortion ban was a “mistake”, admits Polish prime minister”, Notes from Poland (NFP) , November 6, 2023, https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/11/06/pushing-for-abortion-ban-was-a-mistake-admits-polish-prime-minister/ [xiii]  Monika Sieradzka: “ Poland's churches become sites of protest”, Deutsche Welle   (DW),  October 27, 2022, https://www.dw.com/en/polands-churches-become-sites-of-protest-amid-abortion-row/a-55415180 [xiv]  Prof. Steffie Woolhandler et al.: “Public policy and health in the Trump era”, The Lancet , February 10, 2021, era”www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/abstract [xv]  John Haltiwanger and Aylin Woodward: “Damning analysis of Trump's pandemic response suggested 40% of US COVID-19 deaths could have been avoided”, Business Insider , February 11, 2021, www.businessinsider.com/analysis-trump-covid-19-response-40-percent-us-deaths-avoidable-2021-2?IR=T [xvi]  “Workers’ Paychecks Are Growing More Quickly Than Prices”, The Center for American Progress , January 3, 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/workers-paychecks-are-growing-more-quickly-than-prices/ . [xvii]  “Axelrod: American democracy messaging about democracy is for those with “privilege” not to worry about inflation”, Grabien , March 5, 2024, https://grabien.com/file?id=2321827 [xviii]  Jason L. Riley: “Biden’s Worst Nightmare: Blacks and Hispanics for Trump”, The Wall Street Journal , March 5, 2024, www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-worst-nightmare-blacks-and-hispanics-for-trump-economy-2024-presidential-election-fbbe674c [xix]  Nick Miroff, Maria Sacchetti and Sarah Frostenson: “Trump vs. Biden on immigration: 12 charts comparing U.S. border security”, The Washington Post”, February 12, 2024, www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/   [xx]  Olympia Sonnier and Garrett Haake: “Trump's claims of a migrant crime wave are not supported by national data”, NBC News , February 29, 2024, www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trumps-claims-migrant-crime-wave-are-not-supported-national-data-rcna140896

Time to Call a Spade a Spade. One of the most controversial comments to make is to call Trump a fascist. The moment such an epithet is used to describe former President Trump, the accusation of being a rabid Trump hater is levied (much along the lines of a more extreme version of Trump Derangement Syndrome). However, dismissing the comment in such a cavalier fashion does not give justice to the underlying analysis and potential justification. At the time of the Republican National Convention in mid-July, Trump was cruising to a landslide victory, convinced that his re-election was unavoidable. The withdrawal of Joe Biden from the race and Kamala Harris's faultless campaign to replace him has completely changed the dynamics of the race. Trump now finds himself struggling to keep up, both in terms of enthusiasm, voter engagement and fundraising. Although the race is still a toss-up, Harris has yet to reach her full potential, whereas Trump has already hit his ceiling. Sensing the race slipping away from him, Trump's true colours are showing, and he is falling back on the only playbook he knows, one based on hatred, division and blaming immigrants for all the troubles of the US. Not only is he resorting to the same old racist tactics, he is becoming more and more extreme in both the vocabulary and the description of the so-called ills that the immigrants are responsible for. What has always been a most discomforting and uncomfortable practice has become even more vile and disgusting. SIngling out immigrants in such a manner as to dehumanise them, accusing them of eating cats and dogs and being responsible singlehandedly for the alleged increase in the rape and murder rate in the US is patently a big lie and is totally in line and similar to Hitler's hatred and portrayal of the Jews during the 1930s. The declared intention to organise mass deportations and to set up staging camps near the border are ominous and harken back to the infamous concentration camps set up in 1933 in Germany. True to form, both Trump and his running mate are doubling down on the made-up stories about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. Although the Haitians are legal immigrants and are, as per the words of the Republican Governor of the State, much appreciated as hard workers by their employers, Trump and Vance continue to say that they are illegal and that they are responsible for an 81% increase in the murder rate in Springfield and that they not only steal pets but that they also capture the geese from the public parks and lakes for consumption - once again totally false. JD Vance even admitted in several TV interviews that he "created" the stories about them to make sure that the American media would focus on that particular problem (and, by extension, not emphasise the lack of concrete plans for healthcare, for example). Trump admitted during the debate that he did not have firm plans for replacing Obamacare - after nine years of trying to do so - but merely concepts of a plan. At the risk of falling foul of the well-known Godwin's law, comparing Trump to Hitler is no longer an exaggeration or hyperbole. Trump is, on the contrary, actively seeking the comparison by using the same expressions and analogies as Adolf Hitler and that such "coincidences" will only increase exponentially. Much has been correctly said of the references of immigrants as "vermin" and "poisoning the blood of our nation", but we shouldn't forget the March 2023 speech of Mr Trump at CPAC and subsequent speeches, mentioning "this is the final battle." [1]  Lest we forget, the title of the original translation of Mein Kampf, when it was published in the US (the so-called Dugdale Abridgement of July 29th 1933), was "My Battle"…… He goes on to say: "I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution". Likewise, a favourite theme for Adolf Hitler, who stated on March 2nd, 1932, "Our day of retribution has come". [2] One year later, at the 2024 CPAC conference, Trump took this logic further: "Your victory will be our ultimate vindication, your liberty will be our ultimate reward, and the unprecedented success of the United States of America will be my ultimate and absolute revenge." [3]  If the audience didn't understand what he was getting at, he added, " But for the liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and imposters who have commandeered our government, it will be their judgment day!".   Incidentally, Trump, who famously hates reading, is perfectly able to flawlessly name the original version of Hitler's book as "Mein Kampf" when he denies ever having read it. Q.E.D. But Trump doesn't stop there as he also adopts the style and mannerisms of another famous fascist, Benito Mussolini, who predated Hitler. In many respects, Trump's appearance and characteristics are more akin to Mussolini's as opposed to Hitler, who adopted a more militaristic demeanour. Mussolini also portrayed himself as the strongman taking the hits for all Italians and being a victim on behalf of all the enemies of the State. Sound familiar? During his same speech at the 2024 CPAC, Trump outrageously proclaimed himself "a proud political dissident" and stated that he was a victim of "Stalinist show trials". And just as Mussolini pardoned his violent supporters to strengthen his power, Trump has unequivocally declared that he will pardon the January 6 "hostages". [4]   More importantly, Trump is not simply adopting the linguistic style of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, but he is using the same techniques and favours the same underlying philosophy. Granted, he is not explicitly attacking Jews as Hitler did, but he has and continues to dog whistle concerning Jews in the USA, as demonstrated by his comments at Charlottesville or memes he has retweeted that are antisemitic. He does not take any such precautions when he refers to immigrants, who are consistently dehumanised in an extreme manner that would make Hitler proud. As any fascist knows, creating a common enemy is an essential part of the program . [5]   Let's take a closer look at how Hitler came to power and what has happened to date with Donald Trump, whose political career, by definition, is still ongoing. The similarities are becoming more and more glaring. Referring to one such analysis by a German historian who wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post in November 2016, four key points were mentioned to explain Hitler's access to power, namely, (i) scapegoating, i.e. blaming minority groups for policy failures and/or the state of the economy; (ii) media co-optation; control of the media and use of advanced propaganda techniques; (iii) paramilitary organisations and political violence and (iv) emergency laws. The conclusion in 2016 was clearly that any such comparison was a clear exaggeration and was not even remotely valid. Fast forward to December 2023, and the picture looks very different – notably because of January 6, 2021. The first three characteristics are present in the current US today, and as far as emergency laws are concerned, the use of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil unrest, as advocated by some Trumpists to allow Trump to hang on to office after the 2020 election is akin to implementing emergency laws. The importance and impact of the January 6, 2021 events cannot be emphasised enough. The gravity of the assault on the Capitol, the attempt to overthrow Congress and to hang Vice President Mike Pence, and the reaction or non-reaction of Trump when he offered support to the rioters whilst the assault was happening in real-time are facts that have been demonstrated notably in the "January 6 Report – The Report of the select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol" and in Liz Cheney's subsequent book, "Oath and Honor." [6]  Such egregious behaviour on behalf of the then-president was imaginable, and yet it happened. The American media and commentators have been very reluctant to call Trump what he is, i.e. a fascist. Other words are used instead, but the actual "F-word" has been scrupulously avoided ever since Trump glided down his golden escalator in June 2015. The sole exception is Bill Maher, who not only declared that Trump was a fascist even before the 2016 election but who consistently since 2018 was adamant that Trump would not leave office peacefully if he were to lose the 2020 election. Very few people took him seriously, and yet it happened. [7] Attitudes have started to change, with some pundits daring to refer to Trump as a fascist, such as Nicole Wallace on MSNBC (Deadline White House) [8]  and Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski likewise on MSNBC (Morning Joe). [9]  The question remains: is this enough? One of the leading Members of the House Committee mentioned above, Representative Jamie Raskin from Maryland (also the lead prosecutor in the second impeachment trial), is not afraid to use the much feared "F word in US politics". He has gone several times on record to state that "Two of the hallmarks of a fascist political party are, one, they don't accept the results of elections that don't go their way. And two, they embrace political violence." It is also reported that he has a detailed list on the wall of his congressional office describing the 14 items that characterise fascism to remind him of the constant threat facing the country. Referring to Trump as a fascist is still taboo in American politics, and some say that using such terms only actually helps him, and the word loses all sense and purpose. Since referring to explicit fascist terminology such as "poisoning the blood of the people", Trump has turned the accusation of fascism against his opponents, calling the left and the Democrats fascists (whilst at the same time radicals, Marxists and communists). He does this to demonise the left and to neutralise the meaning of the word fascism so that it becomes just another synonym for "evil" and that, by extension, it is his opponents who are evil. The fact that everybody and their mother has at one point in time been branded a "fascist" in the modern exaggerated political discourse risks undermining the essence of the original term. The "crying wolf syndrome" is relevant, but when confronted with genuine fascism, we need to keep the wolves from the door. Trump and his supporters have coined the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) to claim notably that anybody referring to Trump as a fascist "needs mental help support" [10] as a way of denigrating the fascist label. Trump refers to this so-called "derangement syndrome" to deflect from the substance of any legitimate criticism, thus avoiding any much-needed scrutiny. Alternatively, once a scathing, fact-based and accurate criticism is made, dismiss it entirely as being untrue. One of the most recent examples of this is particularly telling as it precisely refers to Trump’s admiration of Hitler. Trump’s second chief of staff, retired General John Kelly, recounted to the writer Jim Sciutto that Trump believed “Hitler did some good things”. [11]  Trump demonstrated his ignorance of the historical significance of Nazi and Italian fascism. Kelly ironically mentioned that Trump “missed the holocaust”. Steven Cheung, Trump’s spokesperson, countered by saying that Kelly, an honourable retired Marine General who lost a son in Afghanistan serving the nation, suffered from TDS, [12]  and, therefore, his comments were not to be taken seriously. Perhaps ex-President Trump’s wife also suffered from TDS after her 13 years of marriage to him. She claimed in a 1990 Variety Fair interview, “After the Gold Rush” [13]  that during her divorce proceedings, she informed her then-lawyer, Michael Kennedy, that Trump kept a book of Hitler’s speeches “, New Order,” in his bedside cabinet and that he read them from time to time. Trump denied ever having received such a book. Still, he did say that a friend of his, Marty Davis from Paramount, had given him a copy of Mein Kampf (directly denying his recent declarations on never having read Mein Kampf). Davis confirmed that it was, in fact, a book of Hitler’s speeches. But avoiding using the word is denying the truth. When a politician uses direct Nazi terminology, it becomes a moral obligation to denounce them. Truth should always – dare I say – trump everything. Words matter, and the truth matters. In the words of Maya Angelou, the American memorialist, poet and civil rights activist, “When somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time. People know themselves much better than you do. That’s why it’s important to stop expecting them to be something other than who they are.” If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, albeit a team of ducks with red hats and confederate flags on their tails, carrying tiki torches and waddling in harmony to a distinctively Wagnerian tune. It is our responsibility to call a spade a spade and to call Trump out for what he is: want-to-be fascist and not only on day one of his future potential presidency. Project 2025, which he has disingenuously distanced himself from, although he has appeared at the Heritage Foundation to support them, is the blueprint for a fascist program that seeks to destroy American democracy and bury the values of the American Revolution just shy of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Talking about "strongmen, authoritarianism, dictators, and such is no longer enough. If we do not call a spade a spade and declare loud and clear that "It's fascism, Stupid!" we will be complicit in burying American democracy. [1]  “Trump Speaks at CPAC 2023 Transcript”, Rev , March 6th 2023,   www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/trump-speaks-at-cpac-2023-transcript [2] Stettin : Electoral speech before the 13 March 1932 elections   [3]  David Smith: ”My ultimate and absolute revenge’: Trump gives chilling CPAC speech on presidential agenda”, Guardian , February 25 2024, www.theguardian.com/us news/2024/feb/24/donald-trump-cpac-speech [4]  Lauren Sforza: “White House: Trump calling those convicted on Ja n. 6 charges ‘hostages’ is ‘grotesque”, The Hill , January 8 2024, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4395685-white-house-trump-jan-6-defendants-hostages/ [5]  See “The Anatomy of Fascism” by Robert Paxton [6]  For further readings. page 167 [7]  Nick Romano: “Donald Trump: Bill Maher warns he could be president for life, blasts media“, Entertainment Weekly , November 5, 2016, https://ew.com/article/2016/11/05/bill-maher-donald-trump-could-be-president-life-blasts-media/ [8]  “Deadline White House”, MSNBC,  October 27, 2023 [9]  “Morning Joe”, MSNBC , November 21, 2023 “A vote for Trump is a vote for Fascism.” [10]  Bernard Goldberg:  “MSNBC's Obsession with Nazis ... and Donald Trump “, Bernard Goldberg’s Commentary , September 2, 2019, www.bernardgoldberg.com/p/msnbcs-fascination-with-hitler-and-donald-trump [11]  The Return of Great Powers, p 257. [12]  Cailey Gleeson: ”Trump’s Alleged Praise Of Hitler Resurfaces In New Book”, Forbes , March 11, 2014, www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/03/11/trumps-alleged-praise-of-hitler-resurfaces-in-new-book/?sh=7ed0d06e5223   [13]  Vanity Fair, September 1990, Profile by Marie Brenner “After the Gold Rush”.

Trump was a bad caricature of himself. The first, much-anticipated debate between former President Trump and Vice President Harris unequivocally demonstrated the stark contrast between the former President and the current Vice President. The themes of past vs. future; inclusion vs. division and sanity vs. insanity were clearly on display when Trump lost control not only of the debate but of his temper and composure when goaded by Harris on his temperament and other personal attacks. To add insult to injury, minutes after the debate, Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris in an articulate and passionate Instagram post, signing off as "childless cat lady", mirroring the swift endorsement of President Biden, likewise minutes after retiring from the presidential race last July. Celebrity endorsements are rarely significant in terms of moving the electoral needle. Still, in a year when previous rules about presidential elections have been turned upside down, this endorsement may, in fact, have a real tangible impact given the large following that Taylor Swift enjoys. Trump and his allies will most probably complain about the supposed bias of the ABC News moderators, who performed admirably, correcting Trump's most egregious lies in real-time and exposing Trump at his worst. They will quibble about the so-called "vagueness" of Harris' program whilst, in reality, it is Trump who is incapable of articulating a single coherent policy, in particular with regard to healthcare where, despite having been president for four years and being on the political scene for nine years still only has a very vague "concept" of a program to provide better healthcare promising to release his plan sometime in the near future. Harris couldn't have hoped for a better outcome. She left Trump just enough rope to hang himself (see his comments about dog-eating immigrants in Springfield, Ohio) while presenting herself as a competent, professional, forward-looking commander-in-chief. She accomplished what she had set out to do and much more. The election is gearing up to be a referendum on Trump, and as a tired, grievance-fuelled old man, he is not standing up very well to his opponent's youthful energy and image. Source: The New Zealand National Library Even the most casual observer realised that Trump's performance was disastrous, on par with Biden's similarly damaging performance on June 27th. Whether or not this debate will change the dynamics of what is essentially a dead heat remains to be seen, and one must be cautious not to get carried away by the hype. Nonetheless, the race is now Harris's to lose. She may declare that she still is the underdog, but with her fault-free performance in yesterday's debate, coupled with her significant advantage in fund-raising and her laser focus on the battleground states making sure she does not make the same mistake as Clinton in 2016 by taking votes for granted, she enters the final stretch of the election campaign in an almost ideal position. She has not yet reached her limits in capturing the undecided voters and can still progress, whereas it seems that Trump has already maxed out his potential support. Trump and his team will throw everything at her, including the kitchen sink, but Harris has the upper hand and can dodge the attacks. She is focusing not only on fundamental principles such as the defence of democracy but also on kitchen-table issues that concern every American. Trump is obsessed with himself, whereas Harris is addressing the concerns of the American people. In today's political climate, the kitchen table beats the kitchen sink. Rock, paper, scissors. Advantage Harris. The dogs and cats in Springfield can take a collective breath of relief.

Love me, love me not. French politics in turmoil. Finally, more than sixty days after the second round of the parliamentary elections, French President Emmanuel Macron has been named Prime Minister. After only eight months, he has replaced the Fifth Republic's youngest Prime Minister, Gabriel Attal, with the oldest ever Prime Minister, Michel Barnier, ex-European Commissioner and EU Brexit negotiator, amongst other things. During the formal handing over of power ceremony yesterday evening at Matignon, the official residence of the French Prime Minister, Attal broke all conventions and spoke for an unusually long time., over twenty minutes, where he declared that eight months was too short, and then he proceeded to present a detailed political program of government - as if he were the incoming PM and not the outgoing one. He clearly has set his sights on playing an ever bigger role in the near future in the fractured French political landscape. When he finally had the opportunity to speak, Barnier ironically started off by saying, "Thank you for letting me get a word in edgeways", before going on to promise fundamental change and a break with the past, mentioning that the time was for action and not talking. One must remember that once upon a time, Barnier was the youngest MP ever elected to the French parliament, and he has a long political career under his belt. He will need all the experience he has to survive in what some are considering to be an almost Tom Cruise-like mission impossible. As President under the French Constitution, Macron is the "king of the castle". He has substantial powers, including naming not only the Prime Minister but also all future government ministers "upon recommendation of the Prime Minister". Macron had the added advantage of determining the timing of the nomination, which was entirely up to him. He waited until the Olympics were over before consulting far and wide, talking to the leaders of all the political parties, from the far-left "Unbowed" ("La France Insoumise" to the far-right National Rally ("Rassemblement National"). The parliamentary elections did not result in any one clear party or coalition obtaining a clear majority. Although the "New National Front" alliance of the leading left-wing parties (the Unbowed, the Ecologists, the Communists and the Ecologists) won the most seats, 180, they were followed close behind by the President's alliance, Ensemble, with 163, the National Rally and affiliated parties in third place with 143 seats, and the Republicans (traditional right-wing) in fourth place with 66 seats. The absolute majority of the 577-seat Parliament is 289. The main issue of the elections was whether the French people were to give the far-right party, the NR, the keys to power for the first time since the Second World War. Faced with such a seismic change, the electorate decided not to do so, and the vast majority of political parties agreed to work together in a so-called Republican Front to prevent the RN from achieving the required number of seats to form an absolute majority by withdrawing their candidates in favour of the candidate best placed to beat the RN candidate on a constituency by constituency basis. The Republican Front was more successful than initially thought possible, so much so that the far right was relegated to third place with only 143 seats, far less than the 289 required to form a majority. Herein lies the fundamental problem of the election. The Far-left alliance did, in fact, win the most number of seats, albeit with only a small advantage over the second-placed alliance. Their success was based predominantly on the desire of the electorate to block the far-right from achieving a majority and was not a clear indication of the support of their far-left political program. Many people who voted for the remaining New National Front candidate did so to prevent the RN candidate from winning, in some cases proverbially "holding their noses" as they were, in fact, right-wing or centrist voters. However, immediately after the polls closed, the leader of the Unbowed Party, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, took to the airwaves to declare an unconditional victory of the left, stating that the only option for the country was the swift nomination of a left-wing Prime Minister from the Unbowed Party to implement "the whole program of the New Political Front, and only the program of the New National Front." Considering that the program in question is very much a left-wing program strongly tilted toward the far-left as opposed to the centre-left, with, for example, the promise to repeal the most significant legislative achievement of the previous government, the reform of the pension system, which notably increased the age of retirement progressively from 62 to 64. Mélenchon took his alliance partners by surprise, and as a result, it took the New National Front more than two weeks to settle on the name of a future Prime Minister from their ranks, finally settling on Lucie Castets, a French civil servant acceptable to all the coalition partners. Following the above-described principle of a "take it, or leave it" style program, Castes refused to compromise with the centrist Ensemble party and insisted that the only acceptable program was the one presented by the New National Front, which included the reversal of the pension reform law, the introduction of higher taxes for the more wealthy citizens, and the increase of minimum salaries and social contributions. This intransigence and lack of willingness to reach a compromise with other parties despite not having anywhere close to the number of seats required to form a stable majority was put to the test during the election of the President of the National Assembly on July 18th. The favoured candidate of the New National Front was the communist André Chassaigne. In the third and final round, he was beaten by the Macron-supported candidate, the outgoing President, Yaël Braun-Pivet, who was re-elected with 220 votes (to 207 votes for Chassaigne). This was the first clear indication of the new balance of power within the new parliament. Undeterred by their failure to capture the Presidency of the National Assembly, the New National Front continued with its strategy of no compromise. Melenchon, somewhat impulsively, to the dismay of his coalition partners, threatened President Macron with a motion of impeachment if he did not accept Castes as Prime Minister. During the consultations with the various political parties, Macron declared his main objective to name a Prime Minister capable of reuniting under his or her name the broadest possible support from all the Republican parties to ensure a stable government going forward. Three options were on the table: the nomination of a moderate left-wing Prime Minister (the previous Socialist Prime Minister under President François Hollande, Bernard Cazeneuve was one such candidate), the nomination of a so-called "technician", i.e. an individual not marked politically (the President of the Economic and Social Council, Thierry Beaudet) and finally a candidate issued from the right. At the end of the day, Macron chose the third option, naming Michel Barnier Prime Minister on September fifth as this seemed to be the only viable path forward. Ooh la la, Mission Impossible ? Immediately thereafter, Melenchon and his allies declared that Macron had stolen the election and that it was anti-democratic to name a Prime Minister from the party that had only come in fourth place in the elections. In a typical dramatic Gallic manner, Melenchon has called for street demonstrations to oppose the nomination of Barnier, not accepting that the stubbornness and intransigence of his coalition was at the heart of the political conundrum. It remains to be seen if Barnier can gain enough support in parliament to withstand any move to censure him and overthrow his government before it even gets started. Many on the left fear that Barnier will be held hostage by the far-right and that nothing will be done without the support of the National Rally, who will demand, in return for not voting against the new government, the implementation of even more stringent anti-immigration laws. The next step in this tortured process will be the denomination of the governmental ministers and, notably, the key ministers of the State. It will be the first indication of how broad the new governing coalition will be, and it remains to be seen if any politicians from the left will accept to be part of the new government. Officially, all four parties of the New National Front have declared that nobody from their ranks will assume a position in the new government. But we will see if this will be the case, as the lure of a ministerial positional can sometimes prove too strong to resist. The second consideration will be the official program of the new government that Barnier will present before Parliament, and that will have to be accepted by the Parliament for the government to survive. Last but not least, the relationship between President Macron and Barnier will be key. In the past, the notion of "cohabitation" was used to describe a President and a Prime Minister from different political parties with opposing views. Macron prefers to refer to a period of "coexistence". All bets are on who will have the upper hand, with some pundits even going so far as to predict that Macron will not be able to govern for the rest of his term, which officially ends in spring 2027 and that he will be forced to resign. This may, however, be more wishful thinking than a real possibility. In any event, Barnier will know that his work has been cut out for him and that Macron will not be able to call for new parliamentary elections before June 30 of next year, but underestimating Macron is a mistake he cannot afford to make.

Defeating Trumpism On June 29 of this year, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn aligned with the Earth's moon, a rare planetary alignment. A month later, the Democrats are experiencing an equally rare alignment of facts, vibes,  and feelings. Trump is not known as a policy nerd. During his regular ranting rallies and so-called press conferences, he proclaims that the American economy has gone to hell with historically record inflation, that violent crime is at an all-time high and that the situation at the southern border is out of control with Democrats promoting an "open" border. The facts are very different in these three major areas, and facts matter. The latest inflation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [i] shows that inflation is currently at 2.89 %, the lowest it has ever been since its peak in June 2022 at 9.06% (which is far from the record ever recorded by the Bureau of 20.49% in 1917 and the post second world war record of 14.8% between March 1979 and March 1989). The crime rate has also consistently decreased since its peak during COVID in 2020 (under Trump's presidency). The recent data shows a decline in 2023 of violent crime of 12.2% versus 20222, the most significant national decline on record and is near its lowest level in more than 50 years. [ii] Last but not least, the numbers on illegal immigration crossings have been in sharp decline since the beginning of the year, contrary to Trump's assertions, currently standing at 84'000 migrants in June. [iii] A closer analysis of the immigration data shows a much more nuanced picture than the skewed Trump presentation. As a matter of verifiable fact, President Obama operated more deportations (ca. 2.1 million) over his term than President Trump (ca 1.5 million). [iv] A differentiation needs to be made between "enforcement returns", "administrative returns", and "removals (deportations)" that depend on where the action is carried out (i.e. at the border or within the US) and by which agency. While Obama earned the " deporter-in-chief " qualification, Biden is on track to be called the "returner-in-chief". As per his old and tired playbook, Trump is focusing on immigration as a central theme of his program and never misses an opportunity to criticise the Democrats for their alleged lax policies. However, the same Democrats, going against their initial instincts, negotiated a bipartisan bill with the Republican Senators to tackle the crisis at the Southern border. The main sponsor of the bill was arch-conservative Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma. The resulting bill reflected everything the Republicans had ever asked for, as it was one of the strictest immigration bills ever passed by the Senate for four decades, according to Senator Lankford himself. [v] Mitch McConnell also indicated that [vi]  "our nominee for president did not seem to want us to do anything at all." This is a prime example of Trump putting politics before the country. As mentioned earlier in this book, the Republican Platform for government has been short in details under Trump. In 2020, there wasn't a platform per se other than to reiterate the Party's complete support of President Trump and his "America First agenda". The excuse for not releasing a new detailed agenda was the COVID crisis and the fact that the Republican National Convention in Charlotte was reduced in size and scope. Instead, the 2016 Platform was also considered sufficient as a basis for the 2020 campaign. [vii] The Party's genuine and unique objective was supporting Donald Trump, and it went into the campaign with a recycled Platform and a recycled President. The recent RNC adopted a new 2024 Platform, which clearly demonstrates that the Republican Party is now entirely devoted to Trumpism. The 20 main objectives are even capitalised in pure social-media Trumpian style as if to give more emphasis and power to the aforementioned points by virtue of "powerful" punctuation. The title says it all: "2024 GOP Platform Make America Great Again!" [viii] The preamble of the Platform emphasises yet again an America in "SERIOUS DECLINE". It describes a crisis in the US with "raging inflation, open borders, rampant crime, attacks on our children, and global conflict, chaos, and instability." [ix] Using this alleged miserable state of affairs as a backdrop, the document praises Donald Trump as an "unapologetic Champion of the American People" and stating that he is the only person willing and capable of restoring America to greatness”. The 20 main points cover Trump's usual talking points, which are heavy in fearmongering but light in concrete policy solutions. A few examples demonstrate this tactic. Point number two declares, "SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION". The suggested path forward in this regard is to use the military to block the border both on land and on the sea and to "begin the largest deportation in American history." The actual number of illegal immigrants concerned varies from 10 million to 20 million depending on Trump's mood. Still, the Republican Party has made this promise a central part of their 2024 Platform. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no immigrant crime wave, the justification for such a massive deportation program lies in the belief that illegal immigrants are inherently bad for America and that their only contribution is in increasing violent crime. To use Trump's favourite talking points, they are coming in from prisons, from jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums. Trump has not been specific in how he would implement this plan. The agency on the frontline for organising and implementing such a policy is the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which does not have the resources to manage such a massive deportation. Trump has indicated that regular law enforcement and National Guard Troops would be deputised to assist ICE and to set up "staging detention areas" near the Southern border. In reality, any efforts to remove the ca. 11 million illegal immigrants from the US would face enormous legal and practical challenges. Moreover, such a policy would be highly prejudicial to the American economy, as these illegal immigrants pay more than 11.6 billion USD in taxes per year (both local and State taxes). [x] Last but not least, whole sectors of the American economy, such as the farm industry or the hospitality sector, would not be able to function anymore without illegal immigrants. The call for "mass deportation now" looks good on national TV during the RNC and caters to the MAGA base, but it will be notoriously difficult to implement successfully and risks pitting Americans against one another whilst stigmatising illegal immigrants as the source of all problems. The implementation of "staging post detention centres" is dangerously similar to "relocation camps" set up during the Second World War in the US for Japanese Americans. If the dreadful policy of separating children from their families, a policy implemented during Trump's last presidency, is anything to go by, one can only be concerned about the human rights aspect of such a large deportation plan. [xi] Another cornerstone of Trump's plans for a second term is to impose tariffs of at least 10% on all imports and another tariff of 60% upward on all Chinese imports. Such a move would align with the philosophy he implemented during his first presidency but would go much further in breadth and scope (up from 1% to 11% currently). Trump likes to declare that tariffs are "a tax on a foreign country. A lot of people like to say it's a tax on us. No. It's a tax that doesn't affect our country." [xii] This is fundamentally wrong. A tariff is, in fact, a consumption tax that is regressive as it affects lower-earning consumers more than higher-earning consumers. The economics of a protectionist, tariff-based policy are indisputable. [xiii] The mechanism is simple. The importer of the goods in question pays the tariff to the US government. In turn, the importer passes on those costs to the consumer either partially or in total to protect its profit margin. In either case, the incidence of the tariff is felt in America: either by the consumer who needs to pay more for the same product or by the US importer who incurs higher costs and therefore has less money to spend on other business expenses, thus reducing private-sector output, worker incomes and private business incomes. It is estimated that such tariffs would cost the American household an average of 1'700 USD per year [xiv] , explaining why Kamala Harris recently referred to the tariffs as a "Trump Tax". The three main pillars of Trumponomics are tariffs, a crackdown on immigration and tax cuts. Trump intends to extend the tax cuts he made in 2015, which are due to expire at the end of 2025, and to further reduce the corporate tax rate by a further one per cent, down to 20% (or even down to 15% depending on some of his declarations). His tax plan would increase the budget deficit by a further 4.6 trillion USD over the next decade, according to the latest report by the non-partisan  Congressional Budget Office (CBO). [xv] The so-called Trumponomics are likely to increase inflation ( and create “Trumpflation”), contrary to Trump's numerous declarations whereby he is the only person able to bring inflation down (even though it already is at 2.9% and edging closer to the Fed's 2% target). Tariffs act as a consumption tax, increasing the costs of goods imported into the US, price increases that are passed on to the consumer; the corporate tax cuts, whether modest or more radical, would act as a fiscal stimulus, and finally, the crackdown on immigration could reduce the labour base and force employers to pay higher wages to attract a shrinking number of employees. Trump was elected in 2016 because he promised to bring back manufacturing jobs to America – a central part of his program – hence notably his tariff policies. However, Trump lost 200'000 manufacturing jobs during his presidency, and even taking into consideration the negative impact of the COVID pandemic, the number of manufacturing jobs during his term reached a plateau at best. The Biden-Harris administration, on the other hand, has already created an extra 775'000 jobs exceeding the jobs lost during the pandemic and is on course to create a further 336'000 manufacturing jobs per year, all thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and the Science Act. Trump failed to deliver on his 2016 promise because of his trade wars, and there is no reason to believe that what failed during his first presidency would work any better if he were to become president again. The one promise that he did keep was to radically change the composition of the Supreme Court to ensure a super-conservative majority to reverse the 50-year-old Roe vs. Wade, securing the right for women to have an abortion at the federal level under some conditions. This major decision and reversal of rights is the epitome of what fighting for freedom is all about, a core belief and cornerstone of Harris's program. Immediately after Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the red States implemented full or partial abortion bans, in effect withdrawing a generational right that women had acquired. The impact of this reversal was profound and continues to affect numerous women all across the country and has had severe consequences for women's healthcare. Similar to what happened in Poland, innumerable women have suffered significant health issues or died because they have not been able to be treated by doctors whenever necessary. Whilst, indeed, the people in the red States where very restrictive abortion bans or laws have been implemented have been able to reverse these bans by organising initiative ballots, such procedures take time. The staunch Republicans in these States who enjoy large majorities in the State Houses and legislatures are doing everything they can not only to thwart such initiatives but also attempting to move on to adjacent areas such as fertility treatments, access to contraception drugs and access to contraception. In the meantime, the bans have been implemented and have everyday drastic consequences for the women in those States. The situation in the State of Arkansas demonstrates this all too clearly [xvi] . The State has one of the most draconian abortion laws in the nation, and the partisan local officials are fighting tooth and nail to prevent an initiative from appearing on the November ballot to amend the State constitution allowing abortion up to 20 weeks and creating exceptions after that. Despite the majority of State voters in favour of more liberal legislation, according to opinion polls, ideologically motivated jurists have been successful in keeping the initiative off the ballot, thus denying women of that State access to abortion without letting the people decide. Understanding the negative impact the abortion issue had on the 2022 midterms, Trump has attempted a course correction by declaring that he is not (or no longer) in favour of a federal abortion ban and that all he is trying to do is to let the States make their own decisions (which is already the case since Roe vs. Wade was overturned). This is a disingenuous argument as the current state of affairs for women is far worse than what it was before the Supreme Court's decision. One also has to question Trump's sincerity and credibility when, in the same statement of April 8 2024, where he redefines his position on abortion and reproductive rights, he claims: "It must be remembered that the Democrats are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in the later months and even execution after birth. And that's exactly what it is. The baby is born, the baby is executed after birth is unacceptable. And almost everyone agrees with that". [xvii]  Such an outrageously and patently false statement disqualifies Donald Trump from ever being taken seriously on such an important matter and demonstrates that everything he says on this topic cannot be trusted. His "newfound" self-proclaimed moderate position is as credible as his insistence that bleach could kill COVID or that the 2020 election was stolen. Arguing that abortion is a matter of State rights as per Trump’s new position is like saying that the Civil War was not about slavery at all, but rather it was likewise about State rights, a position that has been rightfully debunked and which causes many recriminations whenever it is advocated. In this case, not only do facts matter, but actions speak for themselves. By engineering the reversal of Roe vs Wade, Trump has set the country back 50 years and has done irreparable damage to women's rights in the US. The actual policy advocated by the Trumpian Republican Party has been set out in black and white in Project 2025 [xviii] , which has been referenced before in this book. It notably states that the Department of Health and Human Services Department should "return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care." It also recommends that the Federal Drug and Foods Administration reverse its approval of one of the drugs used for medical abortion procedures, mifepristone. It further advocates using the 1873 Comstock Act, which bands mailing of "obscene" items to ban mailing not only the medically required drugs for abortion but also the surgical tools. Senator JD Vance wrote to the Department of Justice in January 2023 to enforce the Comstock Act and to reduce access to abortion pills. [xix] Notably, since Project 2025 has received much attention from the press, Donald Trump and his campaign managers have attempted to distance themselves from the document. Trump goes so far as to say, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. (…) but I have nothing to do with them." [xx] However, more than 20 people who worked in the Trump administration are part of Project 2025 and the main author of the project, Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation since October 2021, told the press that "Most of all, there's overlap", about Trump's policies and Project 2025 and most people involved with the project believe that Trump's recent declarations distancing himself from Project 2025 are meaningless. "The general sense is this is a PR gesture for him to provide himself maximum room to manoeuvre and avoid making any commitments at this point. Most people I know who are involved with it don't seem overly worried that this actually constitutes a repudiation and is going to mean anything on January 20." [xxi] Defeating Trumpism means, first and foremost, beating Trump at the polls in November 2024. This requires a clinical dismantling of his policies, exposing the lies behind them and methodically explaining why they are doomed to fail. President Biden was correct in saying that Trump is a threat to democracy and that this is not a normal election. However, his age and the image he projected did not allow his message to get across to a doubting electorate who could not get past his appearance and faltering performance. The concept of democracy is somewhat challenging to grasp, so for such a message to resonate, the messenger cannot distract from the message. The advent of Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket changes the game altogether. As a messenger, she has the appeal, credibility, and energy to deliver the unwelcome truths about Donald Trump. Moreover, in rapid succession, Harris has been able to reframe the argument and the election by projecting herself into the future and refusing to look backwards. Hope and confidence in an American future are relatable ideas that transcend political divisions and can galvanise a reluctant electorate to come to the polls. After a successful Democratic National Convention overflowing with positive energy, it all looks so simple. A new face for the ticket, a new path forward for the country. Yet what Harris has already achieved cannot be underestimated – she is, after all, closely associated with Biden's administration as his current vice president. However, her unique messaging has reset the campaign, and with her running mate, Tim Walz, she has managed to capture the minds and hearts of a large swath of the electorate, people who would most likely not have supported Biden, thus enlarging the pro-democracy coalition. She has successfully repositioned the election as one of sanity vs. insanity, of normality vs. abnormality. Given the reaction of Trump against her nomination, it is safe to say that there is no longer method in his madness as he resorts to personal invectives and other such old and used tactics that demonstrate he is losing his grip and with the real possibility of losing – god forbid to a black women of all people –   his only remaining strategy is to attack Harris’s person. “Eight years of insults, incitement and affronts to the rule of law have proved that Donald Trump won’t be tamed” [xxii] . During her acceptance speech, she, like all the other speakers, made the point that the path ahead would be difficult and that victory should not be taken for granted. This prudent approach does not disguise the fact that if she can continue on her path, truly transcend American politics, and bring the country to a happier place where hope and joy once again claim their rightful place, her victory will become unstoppable. [i]  “US Inflation Rate”, Ycharts , August 15 2024, https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_inflation_rate#:~:text=US%20Inflation%20Rate%20(I%3AUSIR)&text=US%20Inflation%20Rate%20is%20at,in%20price%20over%20a%20year and “Economic News Release , and “Economic News Release”, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , August 14 2024, “ www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm” [ii]  German Lopez, “Crime on the Decline”, The New York Times, January 11 2024, “ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/briefing/us-crime-rate.html” [iii]  Camilo Montoya-Galvez: “Illegal crossings at U.S.-Mexico border fall to 3-year low, the lowest level under Biden”, CBS News , July 1, 2024, “ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-crossings-us-mexico-border-june-2024/” [iv]  Muzaffar Chishti and Kathleen Bush-Joseph: “The Biden Administration Is on Pace to Match Trump Deportation Numbers—Focusing on the Border, Not the U.S. Interior”, Jube 27 2024, MPI Migration Policy Institute , “ https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-deportation-record” [v]  Sahil Kapur: “White House seizes on Mitch McConnell's remarks that Trump stalled action on border security”, NBC News , April 25, 2024, “ www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/white-house-mitch-mcconnell-trump-stalled-action-border-rcna149331” [vi]  See footnote number 198. [vii]  “The Republican Party Platform”, Ballotpedia, August 22 2020, “ https://ballotpedia.org/The_Republican_Party_Platform,_2020” [viii]  “The official 2024 Republican Party Platform”, www.donaldjtrump.com , August 2024, “ https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/?_gl=1*1obgoai*_gcl_au*MTM4ODY1Nzg4NC4xNzIzODkzMzQw&_ga=2.245951431.2107981841.1723893341-786527412.1723893341” [ix]  See footnote number 198 above. [x]  “Undocumented Immigrants Pay $11.6 Billion in Taxes Every Year, Study Shows”, Pozo Goldstein, LLP , June 15 2024, “ https://pozogoldstein.com/undocumented-immigrants-pay-11-6-billion-taxes-every-year-study-shows-2/” [xi]  Sam Goldfarb: “Wall Street’s Big Question: How Far Would Trump Go on Tariffs?”, The Wall Street Journal , August 14 2024, “ https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/donald-trump-tariff-trade-policy-election-2024-80907f85” [xii]  “FULL SPEECH: Trump rallies in battleground state of Pennsylvania”, Youtube.com , August 17 2024, “ https://youtu.be/XfGIyuiNx2c?si=1pMl7KCYbgo64g6t” [xiii]  Clark Packard, Scott Lincicome and  Alfredo Carrillo Obregon: “Americans Paid for the Trump Tariffs—and Would Do So Again”, Cato Institute , August 19 2024, “ https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-paid-trump-tariffs-would-do-so-again” . [xiv]  Kimberly Clausing and Mary E. Lovely: “Why Trump's tariff proposals would harm working Americans”, The Peterson Institute for International Economics , May 2024, “ https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/2024/why-trumps-tariff-proposals-would-harm-working-americans” . [xv]  “Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $4.6 Trillion to the Deficit, CBO Finds”, United States Senate Committee on the Budget,  August 5 2024 , “ www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/extending-trump-tax-cuts-would-add-46-trillion-to-the-deficit-cbo-finds” [xvi]  Ruth Marcus: “What ‘leave it to the states’ really means for abortion”, The Washington Post , August 27, 2024, “ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/27/abortion-arkansas-states-trump/?utm_source=pocket_saves” [xvii]  “President Donald J. Trump releases statement on life”, donaldjtrump.com , April 8 2024, “ https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/bec0091d-188f-41b9-aab0-653b62da332c” [xviii]  “Mandate for Leadership. The Conservative Promise 2025”, project2025.org . August 2024, “ https://www.project2025.org/playbook/” [xix]  Dan Diamond and Meryl Kornfield: “Vance urged DOJ to enforce Comstock Act, crack down on abortion pills”. The Washington Post , July 17 2024, “ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/07/17/jd-vance-abortion-comstock-vice-presidential-nominee/” [xx]  Maya Yang, “Donald Trump claims to ‘know nothing’ about Project 2025”, The Guardian , July 6 2024, “ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/05/donald-trump-project-2025” [xxi]  Allan Smith, “Project 2025 insiders see Trump's disavowal as 'two siblings in a fight' — not a rejection”, NBC News , July 16 2024, “ www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/project-2025-insiders-see-trumps-disavowal-two-siblings-fight-not-reje-rcna161722” [xxii]  Stephen Collison: “Trump’s personal attacks aren’t just who he is. They’re his strategy”, CNN , August 26, 2024, “ https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/26/politics/trump-personal-attacks-policy-harris-analysis/index.html” "Include quotes by experts in your post to add credibility." – SEO specialist

Dismantling Donald Trump. The three weeks after Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race is in direct contrast to the three weeks prior as far as Democrats' prospects are concerned. Whereas there was a distinct feeling that the party was descending into chaos and that Biden’s chances of beating Trump were becoming increasingly improbable before his withdrawal, the mood has shifted diametrically in the opposite direction, with Kamala Harris not setting a foot wrong. Never before has there been such a swift change in American politics.             At each major decision point, Harris has managed to maintain an extraordinarily high level of momentum and enthusiasm, which continue to translate into cold, hard cash coming into the campaign’s coffers, setting records for small donor fundraising. This is much to the despair of the Republicans, who are trying to portray erroneously the increase in fundraising as a result of a few large corporate donors who will become beholden to the Democratic ticket. Although Harris has been a key part of the outgoing Biden administration, she has been able to present herself as the candidate of change, which in itself is a remarkable feat. Herein lies the basis of her recent success: the Republicans have been slow in defining Kamala Harris and are seemingly unable to find an effective line of attack. From the moment that Harris realised that she was in the running, she implemented an intense whirlwind of public meetings, taking to the Biden campaign in Wilmington Delaware the very next day after Biden’s withdrawal, talking to excited crowds on a daily basis and fine-tuning her message on the stump. Whilst talking to supporters at her first campaign rally in the important State of Wisconsin, Harris was explaining what it would be like if the Republicans were to end the Affordable Care Act as they have threatened to do and concluded her argument by saying “we’re not going back”. This simple phrase caught on immediately with the crowd who started to chant back “we’re not going back” and Harris had inadvertently stumbled on her first campaign slogan. A simple but powerful message on the back of a concrete example. An eminently relatable message that exemplifies the Harris approach: refusing to go back to Trump’s presidency and his policies.  The first major decision Harris had to make was to choose a candidate for the VP slot on the Democratic ticket. The consensus belief was that she would choose a Democratic Governor from one of the battleground States, such as Mark Kelly from Arizona or Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania. Shapiro seemed to be the most logical and plausible choice, as he would hopefully be able to help Harris win the 19 electoral votes from his State, considered to be a must-win. Conventional wisdom pointed in this direction. But to much surprise, Harris chose instead the dark horse in the race, Governor Tim Walz from Minnesota, officially because she had “better chemistry” with him. The left-wing Governor from Minnesota has a successful record as Governor in Minnesota, passing progressive legislation in the State despite having a slim majority in the State legislature. During their first campaign together, it became clear that Tim Walz’s background as a regular, normal, American from the Midwest with rural ties and a history as a military veteran serving 24 years in the National Guard, a schoolteacher’s career and a football coach to boot, he presents as the perfect foil to JD Vance’s elitist profile.   Walz’s experience and ease of public speaking are also welcome additions to the campaign, making Harris and him relatable to the potential electorate. His off-the-cuff comment: “You know there’s something wrong with people when they talk about freedom: freedom to be in your bedroom, freedom to be in your exam room, freedom to tell your kids what they can read. That stuff is weird (…) [1]   This terminology became an internet sensation, with “weird” becoming the favourite anti-Trump word of the election.  He went on to remind people that Minnesota was the third-happiest State in the Union and during his first campaign rally with Harris, he thanked her “for bringing back the joy”. [2] This is not the first time in American politics that the notion of “Happy (or Joyful) Warriors” has been used. Another Minnesotan, Hubert Humphrey, used similar language in 1968, coincidentally when launching his campaign to replace the retired President Lyndon Johnson. History also notes that he lost this particular campaign, but the spirit of the times was markedly different. Anti-Vietnam War protests were taking place, Martin Luther King had been assassinated, riots were running amok throughout the country, and the economy was entering a depression. The only person who believes that today’s America is in a worse state than in 1968 is Donald Trump. He famously referred to “American Carnage” in his 2017 Inaugural Address and continuously paints a dystopian picture of America to this day, promoting his well-known theme of the politics of fear. According to Trump, [3] “America is a failed nation,” “on the verge of World War Three,” and “a great depression.” “Violent crime is on the uprise”, and “over 20 million illegal immigrants” are invading the country, most of them from psychiatric wards and prisons.   Notwithstanding the factual misrepresentations of such a vision, Trump's constant emphasis on negativity and a dark vision of America is consistent with an authoritarian play book. Society's need for security and protection is the source of the appeal for an authoritative leader, and for this appeal to work, the present day has to be portrayed as dark, dangerous, and insecure. The best solution therefore is to turn to a “saviour”, a leader who can lead the country back to safety and utopian “better” days. It is even better if you can add to the mix a well-identified, dehumanised enemy responsible for the country’s troubles, namely illegal immigrants.             As I have mentioned numerous times “authoritarianism” is, in fact, used today in American politics as a code word for “Fascism”. But let there be no doubt: Trump is of fascist ilk. One of the main messages of Biden’s campaign was to “save the soul of the nation” and to “save democracy”. Whilst these are both eminently noble notions, they remained theoretical concepts to a large swath of the electorate, who failed to relate the concept of democracy to their everyday life and concerns. Introducing the concept of joy into the debate makes such an argument more palatable and relatable, as it is possible to offer an alternative to Trump’s end-of-the-world vision that is positive and joyous. Talking only about Fascism is not only “f…… boring” as mentioned by a recent article in Vanity Fair, [4]  but also very depressing and inspires very negative feelings. Human nature is, by definition, attracted to more positive emotions and vibes. It doesn’t change the logic of the argument, but it radically changes the feelings and vibes thereof, thus becoming more appealing to potential voters. If there is a first lesson to be learnt from this recent intense phase of the campaign, it is that the 2024 election is shaping up not only to be a policy-based election but a so-called “vibes election”. In this area, the Democrats have clearly taken the advantage. The “weird” epithet and related connotations have burst the Trump bubble of infallibility. With the absence of Biden, Trump is confronted with a modern, much younger candidate and VP pick who brings much-needed renewed energy to the table and who can express matters in a more relatable and straightforward manner. The Middle America “Dad” philosophy also explodes the anti-establishment elitist coastal Democrats trope, which has always been at the centre of Trump’s political philosophy. Trump is no longer perceived as “the man of the people” and suddenly looks like the older, grumpy, angry, crazy uncle he is who is politely tolerated at Thanksgiving, no more, no less. The secret of success in defeating Donald Trump is as follows: “ In essence, just as Donald Tusk created a powerful new social movement in Poland, President Biden can firmly establish a long-lasting social movement in the US in favour of constitutional democracy”. It is much more difficult to run against a movement than a candidate. The genius of Kamala Harris has been making such a movement relatable and likeable, “sexy” to use a more colloquial term. Fun, joy and happiness characterise this social movement that is growing day by day and that is inspiring people of all ages and backgrounds across the nation. Social media and Zoom calls are leading the way with “Black Women for Kamala” Zoom calls, inspiring “Black Men for Kamala”, then “White Dudes for Kamala”, and finally “Republicans for Kamala”, increasing the depth and breadth of the pro-democracy coalition. The birth of a social and political movement is a rare phenomenon but necessary in times of acute political tensions. Kamala Harris is in the process of spearheading such a movement and has become herself a “femininomenon”. One must also give credit where credit is due. President Biden’s address to the nation on July 24th , when he came back to Washington DC after his covid isolation, set both the tone and the stage when he declared “America is going to have to choose between moving forward or backward, between hope and hate, between unity and division. We have to decide, do we still believe in honesty, decency, respect, freedom, justice and democracy? At this moment, we can see those we disagree with not as enemies, but as fellow Americans. Can we do that? Does character in public life still matter? (…) So, I’ve decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. That’s the best way to unite our nation. I know there is a time and a place for long years of experience in public life, but there’s also a time and a place for new voices, fresh voices, yes, younger voices, and that time and place is now.” [5]  The emergence of Kamala Harris as a formidable opponent and candidate is the justification for the second edition of the present book in such a short time. To better reflect the major shift change underway in the campaign, it is only natural that the subtitle of the second edition is changed from “It’s Fascism, Stupid!” to “The Politics of Joy”. Elections are about the future, about looking forward, not about looking back. Kamala Harris has become the standard-bearer for the pro-democracy movement initiated by Joe Biden and has given it substance, belief and relatability. Donald Trump has been on the back foot ever since Kamala Harris started her campaign barely three weeks ago. His Achilles heel has always been dealing with strong women, and even more so when they are black, as illustrated by the women prosecutors who have fought against him in New York and in Georgia. Not all judges can be as pliable and amendable as the Trump nominated judge Eileen Cannon in Florida. The dismantling of Donald Trump is underway, and the next step in the process is to permanently discredit the underlying belief system and values of Trumpism by focusing on the fundamental and glaring differences in the policies promoted by the two campaigns. The remaining 80 days or so of the campaign will allow the Democrats to do just that. [1]  Elise Taylor: “How “Weird” Became the Anti-Trump Term of the 2024 Election”, Vogue, August 15th, 2024, “ www.vogue.com/article/how-weird-became-the-anti-trump-term-of-the-2024-election” [2]  Cathy Wurzer and Gracie Stockton: “Walz picks up Minnesota’s ‘politics of joy’ baton for Harris campaign, 2024 race”, MPR News , August 7, 2024, “ www.mprnews.org/story/2024/08/07/walz-picks-up-minnesotas-politics-of-joy-baton-for-harris-campaign-2024-race” [3]  Stephen Collison: “Trump has the inklings of a plan to take on Harris, but he seems unable to implement it”, CNN , August 15th, 2024, “ https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/trump-attacks-harris-analysis/index.html” [4]  Brian Stelter: “Sweet Emotion: How the Harris-Walz Ticket Wields Joy Against Donald Trump”, August 15, 2024, “ www.vanityfair.com/news/story/harris-walz-ticket-joy-against-trump” [5]  “Transcript: Biden’s speech explaining why he withdrew from the 2024 presidential race”, AP News, July 24 , 2024, “ https://apnews.com/article/biden-speech-transcript-campaign-withdrawal-432dc25a5af4ddebf75d73bfcc0fa72a”

John McCain has the last laugh. Personalities matter. Politicians cannot rely solely on their policies, however innovative, brilliant, and successful they may be, to convince the electors to vote for them. The charisma factor plays an important part in the alchemy of a successful presidential campaign, as do the candidates' backgrounds and histories. To use John McCain’s favourite expression (so much so that he wrote a book about it), first coined by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “Character is destiny.” Kamala Harris's rapid ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket and her choice as running partner, Governor from Minnesota Tim Walz, demonstrate this axiom all the more. Harris chose Walz because they had good personal chemistry, and she liked what she saw in his background, a down-to-earth, humble politician who nonetheless could get things done even with a razor-thin majority in his State's legislature. The contrast with the opposing ticket cannot be more stark. The Republican candidate for the VP spot started out with a negative 16-point favourability rating, and he has only made matters worse by complaining that the country was being run by a "bunch of childless cat ladies". Trump himself continues to forge ahead with his dystopian view of a ruined America suffering at the hands of an invasion of a horde of bloodthirsty, violent immigrants directly from the jails and psychiatric wards of foreign countries. In the case of Trump, his destiny may very well lead him to a dark place, and with him, the country and the world at large. It is fair to say that his behaviour as president during what remains his first and only term to date was unconventional. A case in point is his “love letters” with one of the world’s most notorious dictators, Kim Jong-un  - using the expression “love letters” is bizarre to the extreme. Or "just plain weird", to quote Tim Walz, although the first prize has to go to former President George W. Bush, who famously stated to Hillary Clinton after Trump's inaugural address that it was "some weird sh....". Trump’s reputation preceded him, and foreign leaders quickly adapted to his personality. They quickly understood that flattery was a valuable tool with Trump – hence the lavish welcome Trump received during his first visit to Saudi Arabia. The description above of Trump's personality is far from flattering. Still, it is very much confirmed by a close family member, namely his niece Mary Trump, who, as a certified psychologist, dedicated a whole book to her uncle “Too Much and Never Enough” and in her own words: “I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist — he meets all nine criteria (in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)”. Still, she adds for good measure the notion of “antisocial personality disorder”, “dependent personality disorder”, and “some undiagnosed learning disability that … has interfered with his ability to process information”. Now that the two parties have finally chosen their candidates, it appears that the forthcoming election will be a so-called "vibes election" as opposed to a "policy election" where electors choose the candidate they prefer based on their "feelings" towards them. Since Joe Biden stepped down as candidate barely two weeks ago, the political landscape has radically shifted in a way unimaginable to most, if not all, observers. Kamala Harris has flawlessly launched her campaign and has been able to secure her nomination, break records in small-donor fundraising, generate an unprecedented wave of excitement and enthusiasm and select a like-minded VP candidate in short order. Whilst it is always dangerous to live within an artificial social media fuelled bubble, the enthusiasm, positivity and good vibes are more than just a mirage, as illustrated by the cold hard cash that has been flowing into the Democratic campaign's coffers and the crowds that come to Harris's campaign rallies. The polls have started to reflect the change in momentum and the race is now up for grabs - and this is even before the Democratic convention in a couple of weeks in Chicago. Donald Trump has built his reputation and political fortunes on "American Carnage" and promoting hatred, division and above all, fear. In 2016, he was blessed with an unpopular candidate tarnished by years of Clinton bashing and the electorate just barely gave him the benefit of the doubt (even though he did not win the popular vote). However, eight years later, the want to be Emperor with no clothes has been called out by the Democrats - as "weird" and looking backwards with no plan for the future other than revenge and retribution. As a convicted felon, an adjudicated sex offender not to say rapist and a business career marred by the charge of numerous frauds, Donald Trump can no longer hide behind his incessant flow of lies and grievances to disguise the fact that he really does have no clothes on and that the resulting picture is not pretty to look at. Freedom writ large is what Americans yearn for; they do not want to remain stuck in the past, they do not wish for a not so great version of 1950s America, where civil rights and women rights did not exist and above all else the vast majority of Americans cannot accept that a 50-year right for women to choose what to do with their bodies has been brutally taken away by a conservatively stacked Supreme Court. In short, there "is no going back". With Joe Biden as the candidate, the focus was unfairly almost exclusively focused on him and his performance. Despite having achieved great success as President, both internally and in foreign policy, the natural process of his ageing could not be ignored. Politics is the art of performance and perception is key. Donald Trump is now learning this, to his astonishment and dismay. His opponents are the "perfect" people for the moment, to use yet again one of Donald Trump's favourite expressions. They have recognised that the path towards a spring of hope depends on recognising the dangers ahead and answering the call to arms to win the war of ideas of darkness over light, hope over fear and of freedom over subjugation. Trump has to remember what happened to his good friend Kanye West who is allegedly the inspiration behind Taylor Swift's hit "Karma". Trashing people publicly is never a good idea. John McCain must be laughing with his fellow angels from his first row view, looking down on Trump's troubles.

Harris / Walz a true blue - blood democratic ticket to conquer Trump and Co. With the selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as the VP candidate, the new look democratic ticket is now complete and ready to go. Vice President Kamala Harris has just made one of the most consequential decisions of her burgeoning presidential run. By selecting Tim Walz, the 60-year-old governor from Minnesota, she has demonstrated that she is not only looking for a short-term advantage but for a genuine governing partner if she were to be elected President in November. Conventional wisdom says that the choice of vice president on a presidential ticket is not relevant, as people only vote for the President. However, when former president Trump says this, it is much more of a slight criticism of his own vice president pick, JD Vance. In this most unusual election year, the choice of a vice president is indeed significant as it clearly illustrates the tone, style, and substance of each party as they get ready for the general election. Tim Walz's most recent claim to fame is branding JD Vance and Trump as "weird", which immediately caught on and has become a catchphrase for the Democrats. Lest we forget, it was President George W. Bush who first coined the term that was more of a cry from the gut as a well-thought-out reflexion - we are, after all, talking about George W. Bush here. After hearing Donald Trump's inaugural address in January 2017, he famously turned to Hillary Clinton and whispered, "That was some weird s....". And the weirdness has just kept on giving over the past eight years from the Republican side, caught up as they are in the Trump cult phenomenon. The choice of Governor Shapiro from Pennsylvania appeared to be the obvious choice as the 19 electoral votes at stake in this State are a must win for the Democrats, but Harris has decided it is more important to have a well-balanced ticket that will appeal to the Democrats at large and to the larger electorate at hand. Walz will reassure the elderly, more conservative minded Democrats who were very much behind Joe Biden. Walz is often portrayed as a progressive politician, whereas upon closer examination he is more of a down to earth, Midwestern centre of the road Democrat, who has a no nonsense approach to governing. The fact that he was for numerous years the Chairman of the Veterans Committee in Congress will be a positive, as will his service of over 25 years in the National Guard. Last but not least, he speaks in simple terms and can connect with the voters without having to pretend that he is something he is not - and this authenticity allows him to state the obvious in clear, understandable and relatable terms - hence the "weird" comment. For once, and this is unusual for Democrats, they seem to have the messaging right. The combination of "freedom" as in the defence of all rights and "no going back" to the chaos and weirdness of the Trump presidency is a potent call to arms and will give the Democrats the platform they need to stage their forthcoming nominating convention. Focusing on the future, on the positive vision of a united America where each individual can enjoy the freedoms that are deserved and where respect, tolerance and the emphasis on professionalism and competence in governing will mark a clear contrast with a washed out, older former President who is running increasingly on a platform of known grievances and who like a broken record is repeating the same untruths time and time again, promoting fear over hope. The choice, as clear as it maybe, is not a foregone conclusion. The recent turbulence on the stock market is an indication that many more spanners are lurking in the shadows, ready to be thrown into the works, be it from within the US or from foreign States who will undoubtedly seek to influence the election as they have in the past. The kitchen table issues cannot be set aside as they matter to the American voter who intrinsically has a better understanding of such matters as compared to more theoretical concepts of "threat to democracy". Once again, the choice of Tim Walz is astute in this respect as well, as he has a proven track record in Minnesota of tackling such issues successfully, as illustrated by the law he enacted guaranteeing free school meals for all children in the State. The Harris - Walz ticket has all the cards in its hands to continue building momentum and capitalise on the unprecedented passion, exuberance and excitement that have engulfed the Democrats since the advent of Harris to the top of the ticket. It will be up to the two protagonists to ensure that they can perform in tandem as they dance their way to the presidency.