Search Results

A TRAGEDY IN THE OVAL OFFICE Many people are tempted to qualify yesterday’s fiasco at the White House, which included the humiliation and berating of President Zelenskyy, as a historical event that will forever be remembered either as the worst day in US diplomacy or the day the US stood up for “America First,” depending on which side you butter your bread on.   In reality, it is not so much yesterday’s meeting that marks a historical moment as it is but the final bookend in a series of events that started notably with Vice President Vance’s dressing down of Europe at the Munich Security Conference, when he ironically professed his lack of love for the old continent on February 14th, whilst snubbing the German Chancellor be refusing to see him given his “busy” schedule. He did, however, have time to meet Ms Alice Weidel, leader of the Alternative für Deutschland, the most extreme far-right party in Europe and declare her his Valentine during a warm meeting if not of minds at least of intentions. The proverbial March Hare meeting Alice in Wonderland, so to speak. JD Vance lived up to expectations by displaying his raving mad temperament by provoking President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in his blatant attempt to curry favour from his Mad Hatter of a President.   February 2025 will go down in history as the moment when the United States formally ceased to be a shining city upon a hill so dear to President Ronal Reagan when the President of the US resigned from his role of leader of the free world and ultimately when all pretence at supporting the liberal democracies was abandoned. Over 80 years of consistent US policy exited shamefully right stage to be replaced by “America First”, brought back from the brink of death where it was left defeated in the 1930s,  dressed up in new boisterous Trumpian clothes and ready to be brandished as the latest weapon in America’s arsenal to glorify American power in the 21st century. Realpolitik à la Bismarck is decidedly back in fashion, with the sole aim of America First being to pursue, possess and apply power wherever and whenever necessary.   Such a fundamental shift in American foreign policy is a significant historical milestone. Coupled with the equally disruptive domestic policies implemented by President Trump in his second term, where the bedrock of Trump’s approach is retribution and revenge for perceived grievances, the combination makes the current period all the more remarkable.   With the wealthiest man in the world at his side, wielding a metaphorical chainsaw, Trump is dismantling the Federal government at an alarming speed, determined to change the American political system forever, promoting the “unitary executive theory” based on Article II of the American Constitution, whilst riding roughshod over Articles I and III, i.e. the legislative branch of government, namely the Congress and the judiciary branch of government, namely the federal judiciary. In simpler terms, the promotion of an authoritarian regime which implies the end of any genuine democracy, even if the trappings thereof are kept alive.   All roads lead not to Rome but seemingly to Berlin, albeit pre-second World War Berlin,  as Trumpism is seeking to introduce a hard-line Germanic version of fascism, with an American accent both in tone and style, creating a unique blend of a dangerous tyrannical philosophy dressed up in the more reassuring American values of “common sense” and good old fashioned Judaeo-Christian values.   It beggars belief that the dismantling of liberal democracy is happening inexorably before our eyes due to the histrionics of a one-time TV reality show presenter, hitherto known as a failed real estate developer, who, despite his criminal record and recent claim to fame as a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist, has managed to become for a second time arguably the most powerful man in the world. The cult of personality centred around Donald Trump is even more potent than those of the pre-Second World War fascist dictators, as it is fuelled and powered by modern means of communication, primarily the internet and the digital highway of social media. Mark Twain once remarked, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes,” when the Pony Express was considered the height of modernity. In today’s world, lies and disinformation travel so fast and spawn so many false versions that truth doesn’t stand a chance against the lies people want to believe. The main threat to stability and peace in the world is no longer just one man, Donald Trump, no matter how big his ego is, but rather the movement that carries his name, namely Trumpism, that has taken over and subjugated the Grand Old Republican party in the US.   Another cliché often quoted in this context is that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, attributed to the obscure nineteenth-century English historian Lord Acton. In the case of Trump, it is better to refer to Hannah Arendt, the German American political philosopher who coined the phrase “the banality of evil,” which perfectly describes Trump and Trumpism. Power did not corrupt Trump. He was already corrupt by nature, and his political success is due to the support he is given by the ever-increasing number of politicians, mainly from the Republican party, who have not only bent the knee in front of Trump but have bent over backwards to accommodate him and who continue to do so. In essence, it doesn’t require much to create a class of snivelling sycophants and enablers attracted by the appearance of power and the trimmings that go with it. Betraying others is only the first step. The founding act is the betrayal of one’s conscience. Let us be under no illusion that the only qualification required to become part of Trump’s most cherished inner circle is mediocrity, upon which unquestioning loyalty can easily grow like coprophilous fungus on cow dung.   Add to the mix the swarm of wasps attracted by the golden pot of Trumpian honey, the modern tech oligarchs who have been so quick to accommodate the new Queen Bee, showering the new President with millions, and you have a recipe for disaster. As Russia has demonstrated, a dictator supported by oligarchs is a dangerous combination, with each side believing they have the upper hand until, eventually, the snake devours its tail. The lords of Silicon Valley would be well-minded to remember Trump’s favourite parable of the scorpion and the frog.   February 28th is the point of no return when our collective innocence is lost and democratic naivety has died. One only has to look at the cast of billionaires and Fox News-affiliated people that constitute Trump’s cabinet. Lincoln is famous for forming a cabinet of rivals, ensuring his three main rivals had a seat at the table. Trump has named a cabinet of accomplices selected not – Trump forbid – for their competence but for their loyalty who will gleefully aid and abet Donald Trump in his crazed destruction of American democracy as we know it.   We can no longer pretend that America is on the right side of democracy. We can no longer hope against reason that the worst can be avoided. We can no longer pray hopelessly for deliverance.   Our salvation is in our own hands. Not those of god, whichever one you choose to worship (including President Trump). Humility requires us to know that the future is uncertain and that there is no simple solution. All we can hope for is that a better future, forged in crisis, will lead us out of this quagmire. Suppose we can recognise the gravity of the situation and stop believing in the illusions of the past. In that case, we can start the necessary work to build a coalition of the willing on a global level to prevent the new world order from being held hostage by autocratic leaders. The world described by George Orwell in 1984 is looking more and more prescient, down to the advent of Newspeak and the rapid change of alliances. But it is still fiction. It is up to us all to ensure it does not become our reality.

JD Vance's spectacle in Munich: the end of Pax Americana It is tempting to fall into anti-Trump vitriol, given the spectacle his new administration has been offering the world over the past three weeks since his second inauguration. However, we must remember that he was duly re-elected in a free and fair election. Although the scale of his victory is qualified as a landslide, it is grossly exaggerated as Trump won the popular vote by a mere 1.5% and did not achieve 50% of the total vote with 49.8%. For reference, Biden won the popular vote in 2020 with a 4.5% margin over Trump at 51.3%. A shift of 120,000 votes over the three states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would have changed the election in Harris's favour.   Nonetheless, Trump won fair and square and is entitled to implement his program. The fact that he has come out of the gates all guns blazing and is aggressively pursuing what in reality is the Project 2025 plan, contrary to his numerous pre-election assertions and promises, may come as a surprise to some Americans, in particular to some of his own voters, is not in itself disqualifying either.   It seems that most Americans went into this election with their eyes wide shut and believed the constant stream of lies and untruths that they were spoon-fed on a daily basis by the candidate himself. It comes to many observers as no surprise that the second coming of Trump is no messiah-like miracle and benediction for the incredulous and adoring masses. From the day he announced his decision to run again at Mar-a-Lago in November 2023, he let there be no doubt that this election was all about revenge and retribution. "I will be your retribution" is the cornerstone of his electoral campaign, although his aides did everything they could to temper this message, fearing that it would scare some voters away.   The additional wild card of the wealthiest man in the world, Elon Trump, rediscovering his South African roots and the political philosophy of South Africa pre-Nelson Mandela, supporting wholeheartedly Trump both with quasi-unlimited financing and a fiery, albeit somewhat quirky personal presence on the trail was enough to guarantee Trump's success. George W. Bush is well known for having given up on alcohol and his previous dissolute life to become a born-again Christian. Elon Musk trod the path in reverse by becoming a born-again Afrikaner nationalist in American attire, embracing his desire for political power and influence by hitching his wagon to Trump's neo-populist train.   The new version of Trump is as expected, unleashed, uncontrolled and free of any guardrails – ready to immediately challenge the democratic status quo in the United States to see just how far he can go in what he hopes will be his second but not last term – as he has "joked" several times over the past few weeks.   As much as the chaos and pain he is inflicting on the American people and society is distressing and a parade of horribles, each day worse than the previous day, the fact remains that it is too late for the American people to change course and complain about the decision they made barely a few months ago. The country has the government it wants, and some would say the government it deserves.   Unfortunately, for the rest of the world and in particular for the people of the countries still considered to be part of the liberal democracies of the so-called "free world" we had no say in the matter. We have to contend with a reinvigorated and revenge-seeking Donald Trump ready to start where he left off, and we all know, despite Trump's best efforts to promote "the Big Lie", his final acts in 2021 were not his finest hour.   Therein lies the rub. Europe, in particular, did not vote for Trump but is now confronted with the Trumpian tsunami of a trade war based on the new President's obsession with tariffs and an American President ready to ride roughshod over international law and recent history to satisfy his vanity. Rather than having his most extreme impulses tempered by his advisors, Trump is being egged on by his appointed group of ultra-loyalists, who have sold their souls to the devil such a long time ago that they have come full-circle and worship Trump blindly as their god-like Saviour. The new Vice President JD Vance of Hilly Billy Elegy fame is a case in point and represents the future of Trumpism: the same extremist and hateful ideology dressed up as an all-American hero, albeit with a razor-sharp mind and the advantage of youth to be able to plan long-term the durable regime change he craves in America.   It is the same JD Vance who strutted out on the stage of the Munich Security Conference in the quaint, old-fashioned Bayerischer Hof Hotel, not to address the most pressing issue of the times, i.e. the ongoing war in Ukraine, but to lecture the assembled European politicians that the greatest danger to Europe was the "enemy from within". Vance's lack of self-awareness was on full display, trying to make a joke comparing Greta Thunberg to Elon Musk (spoiler alert: there are about 220 billion reasons why this makes no sense). On a much more serious note, he had the gall to come to Munich of all places, a stone's throw away from one Prinzregenten Platz where a certain Adolf Hitler lived for many years, to emphasise the risk of the "enemies from within", to stress that in the 21st-century immigrants represented the main threat to democracy and that the European countries were guilty of becoming autocratic nations by stifling free speech and "not listening to their people".   Whilst refusing to meet the current elected Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, he instead deemed it necessary to have a meeting with Alice Weidel, the leader of Alternative für Deutschland (Afd), the right-wing neo-fascist party barely two weeks before a general election. The same Alice Weidel, who is greeted by her supporters with the chant of "Alice für Deutschland", eerily similar to the 1930 SA's slogan of "Alles für Deutschland". We are far beyond the realm of symbolism here and much more in the clear territory of election interference and poorly disguised support for right-wing extremism throughout Europe.   Once again, this must come as no surprise as birds of a feather flock together, and what is termed as Trumpism in one country is called national populism in another – the common denominator between all these denominations is their common core of good old-fashioned fascism, Prinzregentenplatz-style.   This is the reality the world is faced with, where a sitting US Vice President spends 90% of his speech attacking the allies of the United States for betraying their democratic values whilst he was elected on the same ticket as an election denier and felon who would have been forbidden to run again as an insurrectionist in most other democracies, promoting free speech at the same time when the Associated Press has been barred for the White House for the third day in a row, for refusing to adopt the new Trump given name of Gulf of America, and who finally barely mentioned Ukraine as an after-thought as if it were an irritating, misbehaved child gate crashing a formal meeting, similar to Elon Musk's four-year-old running around the Oval Office during an official press conference.   February 14th 2025, will be forever a milestone in world history, where JD Vance's choice of Valentine and his fiery diatribe clearly set the stage for the New World Order, the day when the fog lifted. The day when Europe and the erstwhile allies of the United States realised that America had ridden off into the blood-red sunset to court its new-found friends of a more similar nature, abandoning not only its allies but all its democratic values, the rule of law and humanistic principles, not only at home but abroad as well. The new Pax Americana does not include Europe or, for that matter, Ukraine and threatens to become a Bellum Americanum instead.

One happy camper Why did Kamala Harris lose the election ? Entire history books will be devoted to this question in the years to come and already barely a few months after the election, umpteen different theories and reasons have been advocated, from Bernie Sanders belief  “it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.” [i] to the  BBC’s conviction that Harris did not distance herself enough from Biden. [ii] From my perspective, there is one overriding factor that tipped the scales in favour of Trump, and that is the fact that he got away with lying through his back teeth to an unprecedented extent and that the media, in general, did not hold him to account for his campaign based on outrageous propaganda. All the other very valid reasons for Harris’ defeat are secondary compared to this fundamental fact. The scope and scale of Trump’s victory were unexpected, and the much-feared prolonged wait to declare a winner did not materialise as Trump won all seven battleground States. Just after 1:30 am, the AP declared Trump the winner, and the fat lady had sung, albeit very much to a very different tune than most observers had expected. Trump quickly took to the floor, declared victory and wasted no time wallowing in his victory, saying he had “masterminded the greatest political movement of all time”. [iii] Contrary to 2016, he also won the popular vote, a significant fact in and of itself, as his victory cannot be tainted. The reaction to his victory on the Democrat’s side was equally subdued and contrary to 2017, there was no groundswell of protest, no resistance, and no women’s march with the famous “pussy hats”. The Democrats fell back on one of their bad habits, looking inward to play the blame game. To quote a Politico article: “The resistance is not coming to save you. It’s tuning out.” [iv] The immediate reaction to Trump’s victory was for Americans to tune out, take time off, and devote their energy to other matters after what had proved to be an exhausting political cycle. As further evidence of this, the viewership of both CNN and MSNBC plummeted dramatically after the election, respectively, by 16 and 36%. [v] During the last week of the campaign, Trump was continuously being branded as a fascist, but to suddenly become a respectable President-Elect only a few days later. Even Trump’s arch-enemies Mika Brezinski and Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe fame meekly capitulated and visited President-Elect Trump in Mar-a-Lago on Friday, November 15th,  “to restart communication between the three of them “ [vi] for the first time since March 2020. The symbol was not lost on everybody, as some of their colleagues at MSNBC, such as Katie Phang, remarked, “Normalizing Trump is a bad idea. Period”. [vii] The capitulation to Trump seems to go against the historian Tim Snyder’s recommendation regarding how to deal with potential fascist leaders: “Do not obey in advance”. [viii] After spending two years demonising Trump as the second coming of Adolf Hitler, it took Brezinski and Scarborough two weeks to change their minds. Seeing this as anything other than opportunistic and self-serving isn't easy. It is apparently better to avoid the wrath of the future President than to stay true to your values. Whilst it is easy to criticise talk show hosts and news commentators for their “flexibility” in all things Trump-related,  we cannot ignore what is a much more serious matter, namely the attitude of politicians, not only from America but the world over. Mar-a-Lago became the centre of the world virtually overnight, and the lack of engagement of the still-official President Biden made this all the more apparent. Under the American constitution, there can be only one President at a time, but in a typical Trumpian manner, this fundamental principle was quickly ignored, and Trump not only welcomed foreign dignitaries to his Florida headquarters but also called numerous world leaders to discuss matters of State. Mar-a-Lago quickly became the court of King Donald, with ultra loyalists and supporters vying for attention along with the usual cast of jesters. Elon Musk took up residence at the private club and was Trump’s shadow throughout the transition period, playing both kingmaker and the role of the Prince of Darkness as Trump’s most influential adviser.  On November 14th  Javier Milei, the right-wing Argentinian president, became the first foreign leader to meet Trump following the election nine days earlier when he attended a gala at Mar-a-Lago. On November 29th, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the trip after Trump threatened to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports. The trip mustn’t have gone too well as Trump took to referring to Trudeau as the “Governor of the 51st State”, and Trudeau has since then resigned. Many other foreign leaders followed suit, such as Trump’s old friend and supporter Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary on December 9th and Giorgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister on January 4th 2025. Trump’s new popularity has transcended to the corporate world, particularly to the heart of the tech world in Silicon Valley. Ever since Elon Musk very publicly endorsed Trump in July 2024, bouncing around on stage like the South African version of the mad hatter, albeit a mad hatter with bottomless pockets willing to donate massively to the Trump campaign,  the importance of the tech world’s newfound love for Trump became more and more apparent. Musk took such a shine to his new pastime that he made sure Twitter, now known as X, would become an unofficial arm of the Trump campaign, allowing far-right ideas to spread exponentially across the platform under the guise of “free speech”. The tech CEOs knew which wind the wind was blowing, as illustrated by Jeff Bezos’ highly unusual decision not to allow the Washington Post, the newspaper he owned, to endorse Kamal Harris just before the election, demonstrating that the newspaper’s motto “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was no longer worth the paper it was printed on. Once Trump won the election, the tech CEOs pushed each other aside to visit Trump in his Florida court and kiss the ring. One by one, Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon promised to donate a million dollars each to Trump’s inauguration fund. Moreover, they were promised prominent access to the inauguration itself; even the CEO of TikTok, the much-maligned Chinese video platform, was welcomed to attend, despite the ban due to come into effect the day before on January 19th. More importantly, a few days before the inauguration on January 7th, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta was closing down its third-party fact-checking program on Facebook, Threads and Instagram, a move destined to curry favour with the incoming president. But it is Elon Musk who has won the jackpot, at least at this initial stage, as he has been named responsible for the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he will be able to play Venetian head of State until his heart is content. Initially, Vivek Ramaswamy was to be co-chair of Doge. Still, in typical Venetian fashion, he was soon exiled and found himself scrambling for an alternative path forward, deciding to run for the Governor of Ohio instead. Musk’s influence was apparent during the negotiations to prevent a government shutdown just before Christmas, and soon, Musk was being touted as the real power behind the throne. Trump meekly defended himself by saying that Musk could never be president, as he wasn’t born in the United States. It remains to be seen how long this match in the heavens of Mars will last before Trump feels it is time to re-establish his place at the head of the food chain, but he may find that getting rid of Musk will not be so easy given the fact he is the wealthiest man in the world. However, the choice of Trump’s future cabinet provided the most entertainment as potential candidates scrambled for attention at Mar-a-Lago, and Trump was determined to prove just how different his second presidency would be by naming the most outrageous people possible to his cabinet and daring the Senate to refuse their nomination. The only acceptable and reasonable nomination was Senator Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, but then Trump went full Alice in Wonderland. He first nominated Matt Gaetz as his Attorney General, rewarding him for his unwavering loyalty and particularly aggressive form of dedication to the MAGA cause and, by so doing, probably gave most members of Congress, including many Republicans, a mild heart attack given Gaetz’s reputation and popularity, or lack thereof. But faced with a damning ethical report, even Gaetz could not deny the allegations of promiscuity with underage young women and his affinity to taking class-A drugs; after all, only Donald Trump can escape scot-free from such dire straits. But no matter, buoyed by his supposed landslide mandate, Trump continued to upset the Washington apple cart by naming RFK Junior, or the prominent anti-vaxer, as health secretary, officially giving him “carte balance” to make the changes he felt were necessary. Trump continued in the same vein, naming Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host who once upon a time in the Army National Guard as Secretary of Defence and  Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic Congresswomen and a  Russia sympathiser, as  Director of National Intelligence, to name but a few. All of these nominations have to be confirmed by the Senate, but with a 53-47 advantage, Trump will feel he has the latitude to bulldoze his nominations through the confirmation process and be damned those who dare oppose him. If there is one point that has been made abundantly clear during the transition period, it is that Trump has no constraints at all and that he intends to govern the way he pleases, privileging loyalty over competence above all. This is the fundamental difference between Trump in 2016 and Trump today. The normalisation of Trump has allowed him to impose his will to test the limits of executive authority. Never have the United States been so close to an Imperial Presidency as they are today. Victory is all that matters, and winning elections has consequences. The American people and the world, in very short order, will soon discover that it wasn’t about the price of eggs after all and that Project 2025 was merely the first draft of an aggressive fascist and anti-democratic plan that Trump fully intends to follow as soon as he sets foot into the White House again. Even before the inauguration, Trump declared that the Panama Canal belongs to the United States, that Greenland is essential to American national security [ix] and that Canada is only worthy of becoming incorporated into the United States as its 51st State. [x] The forthcoming presidency will be centred on retribution and vengeance against all of Trump’s enemies, real and perceived. Trump will undoubtedly, as of day one, do precisely what he promised to do, notably by rewriting history in pardoning all of the people convicted after the events of January 6 2021, thus freeing the so-called “hostages” and “political prisoners”. The world will look on in horror, and many Americans may quickly experience buyer’s remorse, but it will be too late. It took Hitler 53 days to dismantle and destroy the Weimar Republic. How long will it take for Trump to bury American democracy? [xi] [i]  Anthony Ardagna: “Bernie Sanders blasts Democratic Party following Harris loss”, Politico,  November 6, 2024, https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/06/2024-election-results-live-coverage-updates-analysis/bernie-sanders-election-response-00187980 [ii]  Courtney Subramanian: ”Why Kamala Harris lost: A flawed candidate or doomed campaign?”, BBC News , November 7, 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr4l5j2v9do [iii]  Flynn Nicholls: “Donald Trump's Victory Speech in Full: Transcript”, Newsweek, November 6, 2024, https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-victory-speech-full-transcript-1981234 [iv]  Michael Schaffer: “The Resistance Is Not Coming to Save You. It’s Tuning Out.”. Politico,  November 15, 2024, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/15/trump-presidency-liberal-media-resistance-00189655 [v]  Ditto. [vi]  Andrew Howard: “‘Morning Joe’ hosts https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/18/congress/morning-joe-trump-meeting-joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-00190100 visited Mar-a-Lago for Trump meeting”, Politico , November 18, 2024, [vii]  Brian Stelter: “‘Morning Joe’ meeting with Trump was driven by fears of retribution from incoming administration, sources say”, CNN , November 19, 2024, https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/19/media/morning-joe-trump-mar-a-lago-meeting-fears/index.html [viii]  Timothy Snyder (2017) On Tyranny, page 17, Random House LLC, New York [ix]  Shannon K. Kingston: “rump threatens land grabs of Panama Canal, Greenland, even by force. Can he?: ANALYSIS”, abc News , January 8, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-threatens-land-grabs-panama-canal-greenland-force/story?id=117428826 [x]  Julia Mueller: “What to know about Trump’s calls to make Canada the ‘51st state’”, The Hill , January 8, 2025, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5072926-trump-annexation-canada-trade-threat/ [xi]  Timothy W. Ryback: “How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days”, The Atlantic , January 8, 2025, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-germany-constitution-authoritarianism/681233/

AMERICA is as divided as ever after the US presidential election December 2024. “Squad Games 2” is another hit on Netflix, glorifying the most violent of dystopian battle royale reality shows. The Middle East is still on fire. Vladimir Putin continues to inflict death and destruction on Ukraine, aided by North Korea. And America, as in the United States of America, is in thrall to a one-time president who has won re-election for a second term. We continue to be in the winter of despair as the world inevitably is sleepwalking into a new era of darkness. An age for which we are all responsible. As free world citizens, we all had and continue to have a choice – and we can make our opinions heard, not through political violence but through political discourse. The end of the world as we knew it was not inevitable. On November 5th 2024, over 150 million Americans made their choice, and Donald Trump was re-elected president. Division, hatred and anger fuelled the political debate in the US and encouraged extremism disguised as simple “common sense solutions.” This resulted only in more fear and undermined the fundamental foundations of the American society. In addition, a constant stream of unchecked lies and malevolent propaganda tipped the scales in favour of the candidate who will go down in history, amongst other things, as the person who has uttered the most lies in a political campaign ever. Donald Trump’s unqualified victory is not the end of the world, but it is the end of the world as we know it. A new world is emerging and is fraught with dangers. As before, rather than wringing our hands in despair, we must recognise that the path towards a spring of hope depends on us recognising these specific dangers ahead in the context of a second Trump presidency that will be more chaotic, more extreme and more dangerous than the first one. We cannot afford to submit to the natural despair of losing the battle for democracy in 2024, and it is all the more important for us to answer the call to arms to win the war of ideas of darkness over light, hope over fear, and freedom over subjugation. We have lost the battle for democracy in the US. Let us not lose the war for democracy in the world.

An electoral victory is not full absolution of the past and nor should it be. The Prophetess Cassandra For most Democrats and those who valiantly supported Harris in the presidential election, the day after is one of broken hearts and broken minds. The red wave that was announced for 2022 was merely delayed, and it was unleashed yesterday on the unexpecting Democrats. Trump’s victory is clear and absolute. He will enter the Oval Office on January 20th as the most powerful President ever to occupy the role, and he will wield quasi-absolute power thanks notably to the Supreme Court’s recent decision to confer immunity for all official presidential acts.   Trump and his supporters will claim that the mandate they have received from the American people allows them to implement their program without restraint. Expect no moderation or so-called unifying message from Trump. He is incapable of unity and bringing the country together; he has no desire to do so, and those who think that this time around, he will be a more consensual President are deluding themselves. Elections matter, and the consequences of re-electing Trump will be felt both in the US and abroad. Pity the American women, the immigrants both legal and illegal, all minorities in the US and all those who have previously stood up to Trump in the past.   However, an electoral victory, as impressive as it may be, does not and should not confer full absolution of past acts. Trump is no less of a liar today than he was yesterday; no less of a convicted felon, no less of an adjudicated rapist and twice impeached former President. More importantly, despite his empty promises, he will not suddenly become the President for “all Americans”. He will merely defacto be the President of all Americans, which is fundamentally different.   The second Trump presidency will be very different from the first one. Trump is much better prepared to assume the role of President, and he is surrounded by a group of loyalists who have done their homework, from JD Vance down. They have a clear American fascist agenda, and it will be implemented through thick and thin. We know what Trump intends to do; he was clear about it before the election. Democracy has not died overnight, but it is very much on life support and has never been as vulnerable as it is today. The risk of having the US become a new American fascist oligarchy is no longer merely a bad dream; it has become a reality. Elon Musk and other less-known oligarchs will soon feast at the very private tables of the White House.   The Democrats would be wise not to indulge in useless finger-pointing and squabble incessantly over why they lost. The simplest answer is sometimes the best, as per Occam’s Principle. Fear, hatred and lying are more potent in today’s world than in old-fashioned politics, where decency still plays a role. We should resist the ill-advised temptation to pretend that the racist, sexist, misogynistic and bigoted campaign conducted by Trump was a mere reflection of the typical political game. It isn’t and should never become so. To claim that Trump is a Nazi is not accurate. But he is the modern incarnation of a fascist, and winning the election doesn’t make him suddenly a democracy-loving politician. He won the election precisely because he could jump on the horse of modern fascism and tame it – for a while, at least. The American people fell to the myth of the Big Lie and were faced with the choice of a Strongman and a black woman; they chose the former. Fundamental racist and sexist undercurrents were deliberately stoked and promoted by Trump’s bigotry, and the battle was not fought on equal terms.   Much blame will be placed on Biden as he, according to some, should have accepted to step down much earlier and allow for a more traditional primary process. But even if he had, there is no guarantee that any Democrat could have resisted the tsunami of lies and misinformation from the Trump campaign and Trump himself.   Elections have consequences, and the American people may very soon have buyer’s remorse even though in the face of the inevitable hardship and difficulties of the new Trump era, Trump will be sure to place the blame elsewhere and manage to stay squeaky clean. The only wild card in the game is Trump himself, as he is eminently unpredictable based not on his alleged superior intelligence but rather on his paranoia and warped, uninhibited personality. But let there be no false hope; he will be surrounded by intelligent and competent minders and loyalists who will ensure he will not stray too far from the promised path.   Yesterday’s results have guaranteed that Trumpism is here to stay and that it is the fundamental new political philosophy of the 21st century in what is still called the free world. Trump’s success will galvanise like-minded politicians in Europe and elsewhere, creating a permissions structure to elect far-right and fascist governments (for example, in France and also potentially in Germany). In this respect, we are witnessing the end of the hitherto liberal democratic model. A new Trumpian US, promoting fascist policies and hell-bent on implementing an America First agenda, is the resurrection of the isolationist pre-second World War impulses that will fundamentally change the world order and, through a chain reaction of butterfly effects result in a new world that is more protectionist, more nationalist, more unstable and thus by definition more dangerous.   The potential for armed conflict is much higher today than it was yesterday. Trump never was and will never be the President of Peace. He will be the President of Appeasement, and the new axis of dictators that goes from Moscow through Pyongyang to Beijing is the single most important beneficiary of Trump’s election. Those who naively punished the Biden / Harris administration for their support of Israel, rightly fuelled by their condemnation of the quasi-genocide in Gaza, will soon discover, to their dismay, that a Trump administration will be far worse for the Palestinian cause than the current administration.   Likewise, Ukraine will soon be abandoned to its sorry fate as Trump will withdraw US support, and Russia will be able to impose a negotiated “peace” entirely to its advantage. The guns of war may be silenced for a while, but at what price? If the past is prologue, and it generally is, the rise of fascism in Europe under Putin’s dark shadow will continue at a faster pace than ever. It will risk engulfing Europe with a more significant and even more bloody conflict than what we are witnessing today.   Trump’s triumph is not the end of the world. It is merely the end of a world and the “new brave world” that is destined to replace it will not be a pretty sight. 2024 rhymes, unfortunately, with 1984.

As John Adams was fond of saying, “Every problem is an opportunity in disguise”. Trump’s lack of support for Ukraine and the Republican House’s reluctance to vote in favour of further military aid before the summer puts the onus on the European countries to fill as best as possible the vacuum. Trump's recent re-election muddies the water even further. Trump, as transactional and mercurial as ever, is fond of saying that the US is paying far more than the Europeans for Ukraine and that the prime responsibility for supporting Ukraine lies with Europe, as Ukraine is, after all, a European nation. At face value, such a position makes sense. Still, in reality, such a statement merely underlines Trump’s intellectual paucity and complete lack of any historical understanding of the world order put in place after the Second World War. The latest numbers do not support Trump’s declarations. [1]  Based on the newest information from the Kiel Institute for World Economy in Germany, the total support for Ukraine by the US stands at 74.3 billion USD. In contrast, the European contribution is 92.2 billion USD. The fundamental difference between the two numbers is in the allocation of resources – with the US spending much more on military aid and Europe on financial assistance. Finally, one must not forget that since the Russian invasion, 6’479’000 [2]  refugees from Ukraine have been recorded globally, just over 6 million in Europe, with close to one million electing to stay in Poland. Germany has welcomed over 1.2 million, most of whom travelled through Poland. In comparison, the US has accepted 271’000 refugees. The support and defence of Ukraine is primarily in America’s interest. It is precisely about the international order that prevents countries such as Russia from illegally invading their neighbouring countries with impunity, emphasising the global security issue at hand, especially given that Russia is a nuclear power. China is paying close attention to the international reaction, with Taiwan at the forefront of its preoccupations. The Russian military has suffered considerable losses and has been effectively substantially downgraded without a single active US casualty – for a total amount that is less than 5% of the total US defence budget. Compare that to Russia, which is now spending 40% of its budget on defence after losing 50% of its military might over the past two years. Failing to support Ukraine would be equivalent to a policy of appeasement . It would only encourage similar actions in the future, endangering not only the Baltic States but also Poland and Romania. In addition, Trump’s recent irresponsible remarks inviting Russia to do what it wants with so-called delinquent NATO Member states increase the likelihood of Russia attacking one of the weaker NATO States to test NATO solidarity and fracture the alliance by demonstrating that others would not come to its aid, thus rendering the Article 5 Musketeer clause moot. Overall, Trump is a firm advocate of an isolationist foreign policy. The US retreat from the international stage would diminish American influence in the world and encourage less palpable actors to fill the void. Herein lies the opportunity for Europe, particularly the European Union. During the recent Munich Security Conference, most of the focus was on bolstering European defence spending and strengthening the Common Security and Defence Policy. The idea of formally creating a European Defence Union is no longer a taboo subject, with President Macron of France being one of the most in favour of a common independent European defence ever since he proposed this idea in a 2017 speech at the Sorbonne University in Paris. [3]  The Polish Prime Minister, for example, has called for Europe to become a military power in its own right. [4] Notably, the three Baltic States have decided to set up a common defence zone on their borders with Russia and Belarus. During a recent meeting of their foreign ministers in a Paris suburb, France, Germany and Poland affirmed their intention to revitalise the so-called “Weimar Triangle”, [5]  a regional grouping destined to carry a lot of weight in the European Union. Notably, nine countries are officially candidates to join the European Union, including Ukraine. [6]  This bears witness to the ongoing power of the European Union as a beacon of democracy in what historically was a much divided and war-prone continent. The candidacy of Ukraine is of particular significance, and the recent approval of the European Commission to open accession negotiations is a clear and powerful signal to Russia from the EU that European democratic values and the rule of law are what matters and that Europe will never tolerate Russian aggression. In the words of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen: “Europe is in the eyes of all Ukrainians who fight for a better future. And together, we can win this fight. Together, we can complete our Union. Together, we can bring Ukraine in our common European home. This is the dream of Ukraine's heroes and Ukraine's martyrs. And it is our dream, too. Together we are Europe”. [7] The perspective of further enlargement in a tense international environment under the existential threat of Russian aggression and a potential withdrawal of the US has concentrated minds in Europe. Concrete proposals to engage the EU member states in “an ever closer union”, as enshrined in the EU treaties, are under discussion and cannot be underestimated. The dual notions of  “deepening” vs “enlargement”  have historically opposed one another. When the United Kingdom was a member, it favoured enlargement at the expense of a closer union. In contrast, other key countries, such as France, have always considered deepening a prerequisite for enlargement. With the UK out of the European Union, the previous Polish government took over the British point of view. In contrast, the new coalition government is clearly in favour of the French position aligned with Germany, which advocates for both. Three fundamental changes are under consideration that, if implemented, will mark a major milestone in integrating European nations into a quasi-federal entity. They are (i) the introduction of majority voting, (ii) the elimination of veto rights and (iii) the reduction of the number of EU commissioners. To put matters into perspective, such changes would be equivalent to the US abandoning the Electoral College. These significant changes, complemented by a plethora of further amendments to the European treaties, were accepted by the European Parliament, albeit in a close vote on November 22nd 2013. [8]              Amending the European Treaties is never easy, as all Member States need to ratify the changes. As history has demonstrated on numerous occasions, such ratification often falls foul of national referendums. Smaller countries are loathe to change what they see as their prerogatives in favour of the larger countries. Furthermore, the recent European elections in June of this year for the European Parliament traditionally offered the national Eurosceptic parties the opportunity to loudly voice their opposition to European integration. An unholy alliance of far-left and far-right parties will strive to hinder any plans to reform the current European legal architecture. A textbook example is France. The so-called “La France Insoumise (LFI)” on the far-left is viscerally anti-European and places the French Nation above the European Union. LFI is under the leadership of Jean-Luc Mélechon, who made a name for himself in 2005 when he spearheaded the campaign against the proposed European Constitution (although he had backed the Treaty of Maastricht back in 1992, which laid the foundations for the European Union, including the Euro). Likewise, the far-right, rebaptised “Rassemblement National (RN)” under twice presidential candidate Marine Le Pen shares the same anti-European views; at one point, the RN wanted to withdraw France from the Euro. Furthermore, Trump's landslide electoral victory will galvanise the European far-right parties and offers them a permission structure to participate in government, thus breaking a major taboo in European politics. European voters will feel less guilty about supporting such extreme parties as Trump's victory legitimises their views, as illustrated by the increasing popularity of Trump all throughout Europe. As a general rule, the far-right parties in Europe do not favour further European integration, and they portray the EU as evil incarnate, considering that giving up national sovereignty to a supranational organisation such as “Brussels” is contrary to national interests. The far-right fringe of the Tory Party in the UK used the same arguments to campaign for Brexit successfully and then after that impose the most extreme version of withdrawal from the EU with disastrous economic consequences for the country. [9]  The European far-right movement is also actively promoting a hard-line policy for immigration, and this is a winning topic across Europe. Once again, the American example is the master plan for such policies. The European leaders understand too well the risks of the anti-European movement in Europe. The war in Ukraine and the increased uncertainty and tension of the political situation in Europe have focused minds and given Europe the unique opportunity to seize the moment and to reply to the current crisis with radical steps towards further integration. The situation demands it. The alternative of retreating behind national borders, as proposed by the opponents to further European integration, is not viable and will only lead to a further weakening of Europe on a military, political, economic and social level. Make no mistake, the obstacles to an ever closer union are numerous and seemingly unsurmountable. Questions of how to achieve fiscal union and the implications of shared European debt (which became, for the first time, a reality due to COVID) favouring the poorer countries of the EU at the expense of the richer countries are a difficult sell at the best of times. The notion of democratic accountability is also of paramount importance as one of the main arguments against further European integration is the perceived loss of sovereignty at a national level and the disenfranchisement of national voters who fall victim to diktats from an undemocratic supranational organisation. Despite the reinforcement of the Weimar Triangle, relations between French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are not good following a difference of opinion on the Ukraine war and how to send arms to Ukraine, and a strain on the Franco-German relationship will make matters all the more difficult. [10] Moreover, the recent collapse of the German coalition government will prevent any serious action until new anticipated elections are held in Germany and a new government is sworn in. Switzerland is the counterexample for the integration of previously independent political entities with various cultural and linguistic identities. The creation of the modern Swiss State, known formally as the Swiss Confederation, did not happen overnight and spanned the best part of the 19th century from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the proclamation of the Swiss constitution of 1848, through to the constitution of 1874 that introduced the principles of direct democracy at a federal level thus firmly establishing Switzerland as a modern federal state with an emphasis on direct democracy. The principle of subsidiarity, whereby the Swiss cantons are sovereign unless explicitly stated in the Constitution, was a critical factor in cementing the new political structure. The same issues of sovereignty and subsidiarity are at play in Europe and drive the integration debate on the continent, albeit on a far larger scale. However, the challenges are similar, and Switzerland has shown the way. What took close to the best part of a century in the case of Switzerland can happen in Europe faster, given notably the much stronger interdependence between modern European nations and the acceleration of political events in general. As an antidote to the question of popular sovereignty that strikes such a strong chord amongst Europeans, introducing direct or semi-direct democracy is a solution. There is no magic bullet to find the perfect solution. Still, the shift in the historical political paradigm occurring today, combined with the high risk of major armed conflict in Europe, requires bold action. The call to arms, which is a central theme I repeatedly come back to, is not only a uniquely American requisite; it is just as potent and powerful a necessity for Europe as well. [1] Ukraine Support Tracker – Methodological Update & New Results on Aid “Allocation” ; IFW , Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Research Note UST 02/2024, February 16, 2024 [2]  “Ukrainian Refugee Situation”, UNCHR Operational Data Portal , March 2024, https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine [3]  Speech of September 26, 2017 at La Sorbonne University in Paris www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2017/09/26/initiative-pour-l-europe-discours-d-emmanuel-macron-pour-une-europe-souveraine-unie-democratique [4]  “EU unity against Russia is ‘first commandment’ Tusk says”, Polish Press Agency , February 13, 2024, www.pap.pl/en/news/eu-unity-against-russia-first-commandment-tusk-says [5]  “Political declaration after the meeting of the Weimar Triangle countries”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland ”, February 13, 2024, www.gov.pl/web/diplomacy/meeting-of-the-weimar-triangle-countries [6]  “EU Enlargement”, European Commission , https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/eu-enlargement_en [7]  “European Solidarity with Ukraine: Ukraine’s path towards EU accession”, European Commission , https://eu-solidarity-ukraine.ec.europa.eu/ukraines-path-towards-eu-accession_en [8]  “Proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of the Treaties”, Euopean Parliament ,  November 22, 2023, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0427_EN.html [9]  “The impact of Brexit, in charts”, The Economist , January 3, 2023, http://www.economist.com/britain/2023/01/03/the-impact-of-brexit-in-charts [10]  James Angelos and Joshua Posaner: “  Scholz and Macron feud over arms for Ukraine”, Politico , February 27, 2024, www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-and-emmanuel-macron-feud-over-ukraine-aid/

IT’S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD   The rest of the world is looking on with disbelief at the recent developments in the United States. It seems inconceivable that a man who engineered a failed coup attempt against the US government in January 2021 has been re-elected president and will once again enter the Oval Office on January 20th 2025. From a non-American perspective, the original Tea Party movement and, more importantly, the Republican Party per se, has been phagocyted by Trump, and we are witnessing a real-life Alice in Wonderland tea party with Trump as the Mad Hatter. In Europe, more specifically, disbelief has given way to shock and downright fear as Trump confidently declared on February 10th at a rally in South Carolina that he would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to any NATO country that is “delinquent” in paying its dues to the USA. [i] Notwithstanding the fact that the European Member States of NATO do not owe any dues to the USA for membership, such a statement from Trump shouldn’t be a surprise as, during his presidency, he already threatened to withdraw from NATO [ii]  as the US was paying “90% of the costs of protecting Europe” which is simply not true or misleading at best. [iii] What is new in Trump’s latest outburst is the fact that he openly is inviting Russia to invade the so-called delinquent NATO countries, destroying the primary deterrent of NATO enshrined in Article 5 of the treaty, whereby an attack on one Member is an attack on all and that the attacked ally will receive assistance from the other Members. It is worthwhile noting that the only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was on September 12th 2001, less than 24 hours after the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. This was more than a symbolic gesture as NATO allies participated in the War Against Terror with ground troops, resulting in the deaths of more than 850 soldiers (the US lost 2’461 soldiers). Such a sacrifice should not and cannot be ignored and should put to shame any other accounting-type comparisons favoured by Trump. While the NATO countries spend less than the US (3.49%)  as a percentage of GDP (except for Poland, which is at 3.9%), the NATO countries are increasing their spending to reach the 2% threshold. As of 2023, this threshold had been met by 10 Members, and an additional eight members should reach that percentage in 2024. [iv] The US defence budget is not only destined for Europe, and the NATO alliance has been the cornerstone of the Pax Americana since the Second World War. It has ensured not only peace and stability in Europe for over 80 years but also the ultimate victory in the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet-led communism. The European reaction to Trump’s latest statement was best summarised by the new Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, who declared, “NATO is all for one, and one for all.” [v]  Given the historical context, such a declaration from a Polish official carries all the more weight. Poland, perhaps more than any other European country, suffered terribly during the Second World War and was invaded both by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in September 1939 after the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with a secret protocol partitioning Poland between them. Despite having an alliance with France and the United Kingdom, Poland was left alone to face the dual invasion and was swiftly defeated. The Katyn massacre of over 22’000 Polish officers and members of the Polish intelligentsia in April and May 1940 by the Soviet NKVD illustrates the tragic consequences of the Nazi-Soviet pact. In a cruel twist of fate, the Polish President Lech Kaczyński and his extended delegation of Polish dignitaries died in the 2010 airplane crash at Smolensk on their way to commemorate the Katyn massacre. In August 1944, the Warsaw Uprising conducted by the Free Polish Army was expecting the help and support of the Red Army camped across the Vistula River less than five kilometres from the centre of Warsaw, to no avail. The Red Army witnessed as a mere spectator the utter destruction of the Capital city in October 1944 and the defeat of the Polish insurrectionists only to “liberate” Warsaw in January 1945. The subject of mutual defence is understandably a susceptible topic in Poland to this day. It is, therefore, no surprise that Poland is investing heavily in its defence budget as it shares not only a border with Belarus but with Russia proper with a 210 km long Poland-Kaliningrad border. Although it has not been officially confirmed, NATO believes that the Iskander missiles stationed in the Russian territory are equipped with nuclear warheads. [vi] The Russian threat is a genuine existential danger to Poland, and the average person on the street is very wary and sceptical of the promised support of NATO allies in the eventuality of military action by Russia. Understandably, Poland has become the vanguard of Europe in the Ukrainian crisis. History matters. Especially for Poland. As William Faulkner would say, “The past is never dead. It is not even past.” The recent speech by the new Polish foreign minister before the UN Security Council is a masterpiece that attracted international attention. [vii]  He rebuts line by line the intervention of the Russian Ambassador to the UN, who was presenting a warped version of history to justify his country's invasion of Ukraine, notably accusing Poland of being the aggressor in World War II. The weight of history on the Polish psyche cannot be underestimated. Unbeknownst to most people in Western Europe, Poland resisted the expansionist ambitions of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918 (and incidentally protected the rest of Europe from the expansion of the Red Army westwards). The decisive victory of the Polish army at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920 during the Polish-Soviet War was as unexpected as consequential in cementing the new Polish Republic’s place in modern history. “The Miracle on the Vistula” occupies a special place in the heart of the Polish Nation and demonstrates the weight of the past in the troubled relationship between the two countries. Compare this to Tucker Carlson’s recent disgraceful meek interview with Vladimir Putin, where he could only acquiesce with a weak “of course” when Putin claimed that Poland was responsible for Nazi Germany’s invasion. [viii] Such a sentiment is reinforced by Trump’s bluster but also by the fact that the American Congress delayed for a long time to approve additional military support to Ukraine, resulting in a substantial weakening of Ukraine in its two-year-long war with Russia. The Republican party is taking its marching orders from Trump. Speaker Mike Johnson momentarily refused to contemplate any additional funding. He chooses to follow in Kevin McCarthys’ footsteps by making the trip down to Mar-a-Lago to “kiss the ring” on President’s Day of all days. Europe is stuck between Trump and Putin. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a solid pro-Putin wing in the Republican Party led by Trump who could not even bring himself to condemn Putin for the death of his main political rival, Alexei Navalny, due to a “sudden death episode” while going for “a stroll” in his Artic gulag. In a genuinely disgraceful twist, Trump prefers to compare himself to Navalny, stating that his legal problems “are a form of Navalny” and that it is “a form of communism and fascism”. [ix]  Once again, Trump perverts the true meaning of words and renders them meaningless. Trump’s view of Europe has always been tainted with disdain and contempt, portraying the European countries as ungrateful and weak. Just before leaving for the Helsinki Summit with Putin in the summer of 2018, where he famously supported Putin over his intelligence services, Trump declared, “I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade”. Once again, it was Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council at the time, who rebutted Trump: “America and the EU are best friends. Whoever says we are foes is spreading fake news”. [x] This negative opinion has stayed the same since 2018. Trump intends to impose an across-the-board 10% import tariff on all US imports as part of his future policies. [xi]  Trump mistakenly sees trade deficits as losses and believes that tariffs are an added source of revenue. In contrast, it is, in fact, the American consumer that pays for the tariffs, not the exporting nations. America openly embraces protectionism for the first time since the “Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act” of 1930. This is a dangerous path to tread, as any unilateral tariffs will be met by corresponding tariffs on American goods, resulting in a marked decrease in international trade. Trump imposed tariffs on European steel and aluminium, resulting in European tariffs on some US goods such as motorcycles and whisky. The Biden administration suspended the tariffs, and the truce has been extended to March 2025, i.e. after the forthcoming US election. [xii] Now that Trump has been re-elected, one can imagine that the negotiations between the EU and the US would be tense and fraught with danger, potentially resulting in a new EU – US trade war. Trump’s view on Europe aligns greatly with the far-right conservative parties emerging in parts of Europe. He constantly lauds Viktor Orbán from Hungary (even if he does not always correctly remember that he is Hungary's Prime Minister, not Turkey’s). [xiii]  Trump is the Eurosceptic “par excellence” and is leading the Republican party in the same direction. This wing of the Republican party has traditionally seen the social democratic principles at the national and EU levels as detrimental to economic progress and contrary to American values. In the realm of Euroscepticism, Trump has a partner in crime: Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader has always seen the EU as a threat, and a weaker EU would have less power to criticise and counteract Russia’s foreign policy—a point made all the truer by the war in Ukraine. It is no coincidence that President Zelensky of Ukraine sees swift membership of the EU as a major strategic objective. The sum total of Trump’s past actions regarding Europe, his current statements, and his declared intentions now that he has become president again has led European leaders to fundamentally rethink their geopolitical position on the world stage. At the recent security conference in Munich, the mood amongst European leaders was “fearful and determined rather than panicked” [xiv] and the taboo of discussing Europe’s future without the US has been broken. Although any fundamental changes will take time, there is a recognition that the status quo of liberal democracy championed by the US and its allies since 1945 is now being severely challenged by a new worldview promoted by Trump and focused on so-called national conservatism with an emphasis notably on big government, protectionism, anti-multilateralism, national identity and anti-immigration promising a return to the greatness of the past that represents more of a mirage than an achievable reality. The editor-in-chief of the much respected and very serious Economist magazine precisely discussed this in an interview with John Stewart on his return to the Daily Show. [xv] The end of the liberal world order would usher in a period of uncertainty and potential chaos before a new balance could be found. Emerging superpowers like China and India would jockey for a more dominant position in world affairs. Such a scenario has become a distinct probability following Trump's re-election. The success of old-fashioned liberal democrats such as Donald Tusk in Poland can check the rise of national conservatism in Europe. Marine Le Pen is not guaranteed to win the French presidential elections in 2027. The Conservatives in the UK have been voted out of office. But it is undeniable that the result of the American election and the re-election of Donald Trump will have a significant impact on the advent or not of a new international order. [i] Kate Sullivan: “Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough“, CNN , February 11, 2024, https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html [ii]  “Trump Confirms He Threatened to Withdraw from NATO”, The Atlantic Council , August 23, 2018, www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/trump-confirms-he-threatened-to-withdraw-from-nato/ [iii]  David Welna: “FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending”, National Public Radio(NPR) , July 11, 2018, www.npr.org/2018/07/11/628137185/fact-check-trumps-claims-on-nato-spending [iv]  Derek Hawkins: ”See which NATO countries spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense”, The Washington Post , February 12, 2024, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/12/nato-countries-defense-spending-gdp-trump/ [v]  Clea Caulcutt: NATO is ‘All for one, and one for all!’ says Poland’s Tusk after Trump’s attack”, Politico , February 12, 2024, ” www.politico.eu/article/donald-tusk-nato-donald-trump-europe-ukraine-russia-war/   [vi]  Daniel S. Hamilton and Adrianna Pita: “ Why is Kaliningrad at the center of a new Russia-NATO faceoff?”, The Brookings Institution , June 23, 2022, www.brookings.edu/articles/why-is-kaliningrad-at-the-center-of-a-new-russia-natofaceoff [vii]  See Appendix Four for the full transcript [viii]  Emily Zemler: “Jon Stewart Takes Aim at Tucker Carlson’s Putin Interview: ‘You’re Such a Dick’”, Rolling Stone , February 20, 2024, www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/jon-stewart-daily-show-tucker-carlson-putin-interview-1234971049/ [ix]  “Trump compares his legal troubles to the persecution of Alexei Navalny”, The Guardian , February 21, 2024, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/21/trump-compares-fraud-trial-alexei-navalny-death-russian-opposition-leader-vladimir-putin-fox-town-hall [x]  Andrew Roth, David Smith, Edward Helmore and Martin Pengelly:  “Trump calls European Union a 'foe' – ahead of Russia and China, The Guardian , July 15, 2018, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/15/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-helsinki-russia-indictments [xi]  Barbara Moens and Camille Gijs: “Trump’s return strikes fear into the heart of Brussels”, Politico , September 4, 2023,  www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-european-union-reelection-trade-tariffs-steel-aluminum-fears/ [xii]  Jonathan Josephs: “Europe and US extend trade truce over Trump tariffs”, BBC News , December 19, 2023, www.bbc.com/news/business-67758395# [xiii]  Seb Starcevic: “Trump praises Hungary’s ‘Viktor Orbán’ as great ‘leader of Turkey’”, Politico , October 24, 2023, https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-confuses-turkish-and-hungarian-leaders-orban-erdogan/ [xiv]  “Can Europe defend itself without America?”, The Economist , February 18, 2024, www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/18/can-europe-defend-itself-without-america [xv]  The Daily Show, “Zanny Minton Beddoes - The Economist “, https://youtu.be/7cmWbSv-GOE?si=g-sR5P-Pt9X8PGJ4

A Personal Word of Explanation. Posting regularly on TikTok herein presents a somewhat different approach to the problem of how to deal with the advent of Trumpism in 2024 and how to convey the key message that needs to be conveyed, namely that Trump’s fascism is no laughing matter and is in direct line with the worst of the 20th century, so much so that the Ancient philosophers would recognise it for what it is and would most probably be turning in their graves if they hadn’t been beheaded and nailed to the rostra of the forum in Rome. As fun and as innovative TikTok may be, it does not necessarily allow for a detailed approach and analysis. That is why I wrote a book in April, “2024: A Call to Arms. It’s Fascism, Stupid”, that was updated in August following the entry of Kamala Harris into the presidential race.   The genesis of the book is the rapid change in world affairs and its impact on me. The coronavirus pandemic, with its travails, lockdowns and other such consequences, was by itself a one-in-a-lifetime occurrence. And yet, barely three years on, it has disappeared in the background, overtaken by another of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. War has taken centre stage over disease and death. Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine is an existential threat to stability and peace in Europe. Ukraine is fighting not only for its freedom but, more importantly, for our freedom as Europeans and Americans. The Middle East is once again the scene of unimaginable violence, with the century-long conflict between Israel and Palestinians erupting anew, with a quasi-genocide happening on our doorstep. Climate change has a concrete impact on our daily lives, with wildfires never seen before, intense hurricanes, floods and heat waves galore. Each month breaks the record for the warmest seasonal temperature, and it is now a case of not if but when we will have reached the tipping point. Reading the news on social media has become the art of doom scrolling – each day brings us closer to the end of the world. So, what are we to make of this? Are we to let our politicians peddle their fare and promote their selfish interests through fear and despair? Should we hide our heads in the sand and hope for better times? Or should we have a healthier reaction to take action and let our voices be heard? The popular song by the 4 Non Blondes, “What’s Up”, from 1992, eons ago, is all the more relevant today. As coincidence has it, I was just over 25 years old when the song came out and  to quote the lyrics: “25 years and my life is still Tryin' to get up that great big hill of hope For a destination I realised quickly when I knew I should That the world was made up of this brotherhood of man For whatever that means” When I wake up in the morning in 2024, I feel that it is time “to scream from the top of my lungs” and to ask, “What’s going on?”. Each and every one of us has a voice that deserves to be heard. The main purpose of this book is to scream out as loud as I can from the top of my lungs and to “pray for revolution.” But fear not; I am no Robespierre. By revolution, I precisely mean to revolt against what I perceive as the biggest threat that exists today: the threat of small-minded, bigoted, and ultimately dangerous nationalism draped in the illusion of patriotism and a return to so-called Judaeo-Christian values. The book focuses on American politics, and Donald J. Trump is the show's star, much to my regret, not for any intrinsic reasons per se but rather by simple virtue of aspiring to lead once again the largest liberal democracy in the world today, the world’s remaining superpower that has the singular power to influence world politics for the foreseeable future. The election of Trump in November 2024 will have far-reaching consequences not only for the United States of America but for the world at large. When I was much younger, I thought witnessing the fall of the Berlin War was the most significant event I would ever experience in modern history. But it turns out that that event, as exceptional as it was, was simply a precursor for the changes to come. Today, my duty, our duty, is not merely to witness history unquestioningly but to report on it, to speak truth not only to power but to the masses, to try to make a difference, however small and insignificant it may be or appear to be. I chose to use the only weapon I have: my writing. I want to convey my deep sense of urgency and the need to speak out as loudly as possible, inspire, provoke, and assemble. This is a call to arms, a call to defend what is the worst form of government with the exception of all others, to ensure that liberal democracy as we know it not only survives but flourishes so that it can improve and deliver for “the brotherhood of man.” Much is made of the references to fascism and Nazi Germany in the book. I know that many people will cry foul and say such comparisons are wildly inappropriate. To that, I say, listen carefully to what Trump says, his expressions, and how often he uses them. Precisely, at the time of writing this final segment of the book in April 2024, Trump had just finished giving a speech to the national religious broadcasters where he said “that the greatest threat to the US is people from within our country”. [i]  It’s the people from within our country that are more dangerous than the people outside.” He reinforced this radical message over the course of the last month of his campaign, threatening to deal with this so-called enemy from within by using the US military against them,  if needs be. This concept of the enemy within is a copy-paste from Adolf Hitler himself, who for many years referred to “the Jewish poison” as “the enemy within”, responsible notably for the defeat of 1918 and the subsequent decline of the German Nation. In 1942, just before Hitler formalised the "Final Solution", a British intelligence report analyses Hitler’s state of mind as the war was starting to turn against him. According to this report, Hitler was obsessed with what he called “the enemy within”, namely the Jews. [ii] It is impossible to remain unfazed and normal by Trump’s rhetoric. Something must be done, and although I cannot vote in the forthcoming US presidential election, I can at the very least say what I think and express my point of view and, most importantly, ensure that defeating Trump and the new form of fascism he represents becomes the central rallying cry of the 2024 election. “It’s fascism, stupid”. To end on a more positive note, the moment of truth is upon us and election day is finally here. I am not in the business of making baseless predictions; I prefer to look at the situation with of as much an independent and objective eye as possible. Although, as mentioned previously, 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. God willing, my faith in the American people will be vindicated by the results – even if, as we all know, Trump will cry bloody murder and refuse to recognise his defeat, claiming the election was rigged. But no matter, once we have a genuine electoral victory under our belt, we can deal with Trump’s megalomania and lies with our weapon of choice: the sword of Lady Justice that so powerfully represents justice and the rule of law. [i] Alice Herman: ”Trump warns of enemies ‘within our country’ to Christian media gathering”, The Guardian , February 23, 2024, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/23/trump-national-religious-broadcasters-enemies-within-country [ii] www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/inside-hitlers-mind  “Nazi Germany - An Enemy Within? - Hitler and the Jews N03c “, Timelines TV , https://youtu.be/u5CuRpwhw5M?si=jYmpmvfknn8G2QQv

Imagine who will be President on July 4 2026. The official logo of the US Semiquincentennial The victor of the 2024 election will have the distinct honour of being the president overseeing the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. What better time than to celebrate the spirit of the United States and the Founding Fathers who did so much to hold aloft the values that form the American Identity? God forbid if an insurrectionist president who is the antithesis of those values is back in the White House. It would be like burning the Declaration of Independence on the bonfire of Trumpian vanities. The Founding Fathers’ values remind us of the importance and relevance of their original ideas and principles. Faced with the predicament of choosing between democracy and authoritarian regimes, the free world would be wise to realise that freedom is the cure for Trumpism. Locke and Montesquieu developed the theory that every human being has certain rights that are an immutable part of being human, derived from nature and not government or its laws. Let us remember the three natural rights that Thomas Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Let us remember the Virginia Declaration of Rights written by George Mason, declaring notably: “All men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” Let us remember the Constitution of 1778, which created a bicameral legislative system and equal executive and judicial branches to set up a system of checks and balances. Let us remember the subsequent Bill of Rights written by James Maddison and ratified in 1791 as the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution, in particular freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly, due process of law, equality before the law and freedom of faith. Let us remember Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address declaring “a new birth of freedom”, celebrating the Emancipation Proclamation, which gave true meaning to the promise that “all men are born equal”. Let us remember “The Second Founding” and the ratification of the Constitution’s 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments after the Civil War, which prohibited slavery, promised citizenship to all born in America, offered equal protection under the law, and protected the right to vote from racial discrimination. The framers of the 14th Amendment declared,” It is the Declaration of Independence placed immutably and forever in our constitution.” Let us remember the Declaration of Sentiments of 1848, inspired directly by the Declaration of Independence. This document culminated in the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed the right for women to vote just over 100 years ago. Let us remember the champion of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who said in his famous Address at the Lincoln Memorial, “When the architects of our Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note promised that all men—yes, black and white men—would be guaranteed “the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Let us remember at last that the Founding Documents, The Declaration, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights remain timeless and are destined to evolve to “form a more perfect Union” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. The defence of freedom, liberty, and democracy is an ever-ending struggle. Thomas Jefferson warns, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”. [i] It is incumbent on all of us who cherish the principles enshrined in the US Founding Documents and the principles of liberal democracy celebrated in the Free World to rise to the challenge and fight for freedom and liberty. On September 12 2001, after the notorious Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, one of the leading French newspapers, Le Monde, proclaimed “We are all Americans” on its front page. In a packed German Bundestag, a leading German politician declared, “Wir sind alle Amerikaner”, [ii]  just as President Kennedy had said some forty years before “, Ich bin ein Berliner”. Queen Elizabeth II ordered the American Anthem to be played by her guard at Buckingham Palace. The attack on America concerned the whole Free World and beyond. When freedom and liberty are at stake, such support and reactions are more than welcome; they are indispensable. Today, democracy is at stake in the 2024 US elections – a matter of concern for America and the West. Whilst only US citizens can vote, it is wrong to say that it is not our business and that we should not voice our opinion. On the contrary, we must stand up for democracy in the US, as our future is also at stake. Once again, “We are all Americans” in a way even more profound than after 9/11 as our future is at stake as well. Fascism was born in Europe and slayed in Europe; let it not resurrect in the US. Trump’s posture and grandstanding, his violent speech sowing division and hatred, his fullhearted embrace of the vilest propaganda and his proven track record as an insurrectionist present us with a significant quandary. Should individuals or political parties be allowed to participate in a democratic process if their avowed intention is to destroy the process in question and replace it with authoritarianism? In some countries, such as Germany, political parties can be banned if they have such intentions. In the US the only similar legal basis is Section Three of the 14th amendment, known as “Disqualification from Holding Office”; whereby “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Many believe that applying this disposition would be a denial of democracy as only the people, i.e. the voters, can decide whether Trump is worthy of being president again or not. This is a logical fallacy, as the eventual application of such a clause would be in the interest of protecting democracy and the Constitution. Thereby, it is eminently democratic. Referring to the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”. Solemn duty does not mean being apologists for the aggrieved despotic behaviour. Or as Trump’s supporters are doing, defending him and his actions by attacking the truth. However, the argument could be made that Trump should only be disqualified if a jury of his peers convicts him before a court of law. In any event, several states took it upon themselves to disqualify Trump from their respective ballots, with the provision to refer to the Supreme Court. Trump and his lawyers naturally appealed the first such decision issued by the State of Colorado. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter and ultimately rendered a ruling one day before Super Tuesday on March 4, stating that Colorado can’t bar Trump from their primary ballot. This also applies to all other states. The decision was based purely on legal considerations, and whether the Supreme Court agreed with the Colorado Supreme Court that Trump was an insurrectionist still needs to be addressed. Nonetheless, Trump declared it “A big win for America”. [iii]  Furthermore, as per the court’s ruling, only Congress can legislate on the disqualification of a candidate, which leaves some questions unanswered. What would happen if once elected in November, a Democratic Congress attempted to disqualify Trump from taking office? The probability of Trump winning the election whilst the Democrats would win both chambers of Congress is limited but still theoretically possible. This recent ruling begs the question of whether Trump is benefitting from preferential treatment. Despite his numerous claims of persecution, Trump is undoubtedly being handled differently than a normal justiciable at the highest court level and by Trump-nominated judges such as U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in the classified documents case in Florida. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, but some more than others. Whereas over 500 January 6 rioters have been prosecuted, sentenced and imprisoned, the instigator and mastermind of the same riots, Trump, is still a free man, as are his numerous accomplices. The vast majority of the rioters were following what they believed were Trump’s explicit instructions. Because of their lack of financial means and position in society, they were the first to suffer from the long arm of the law. The result of a presidential election cannot substitute for the Constitution and serve as absolution for past crimes, even if Trump maintains that he should have absolute immunity for all actions under his past and eventual future presidencies. Including presumably shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue. As President Kennedy said, “Sometimes the majority just means all fools are on the same side”. Political philosophers and scientists have debated the “Rule of the Mob” issue for centuries, including Plato, Aristoteles, Cicero, and, more recently, Edmund Burke. Can we presume that the power of the people who get carried away by their bloodlust, as during the French Revolution with the Terror, is acceptable? The Founding Fathers reflected in detail on this matter in Federalist Letter 55: “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” Their solution was to create a political system with intricate structural checks and balances, where each branch of government controlled the other. But even the best political systems are not infallible. The age of democratic naivety died on January 6, 2021. The fact that the coup was unsuccessful has no bearing on the severity of the attempt and does not mean that future endeavours will not be successful. The fox does not give up after first attempting to enter the chicken’s coop. If it is pushed back on its first try, it will come back again and adopt a different approach and tactics, knowing what to avoid following its first failure. Trump, who has never read Mein Kampf, knows enough history to remember that Hitler came to power through the ballot box after having attempted a coup and failed. Blaise Pascal, the French 17th-century philosopher, is known for the so-called “Pascal’s wager”. Although it is used chiefly relative to God’s existence or lack thereof, it has a more fundamental basis for determining decision and game theory. Even if you doubt that Trump will not behave as a dictator not only on day one but beyond, even if you doubt that he will not abuse his own office to block his criminal prosecutions or grant himself a presidential pardon if needs be, even if you doubt, he will not invoke the Insurrection Act to control the protests against him, it is not a risk worth taking. This is what Pascal taught us: measuring risk requires considering the likelihood of an event and the consequences if it does. [iv] This does not mean we must take to arms and fight on the streets. It is also our solemn duty to play by the rules and to operate with the constraints of the current legal and political system. We must exemplify our actions and demonstrate that upholding democracy requires such behaviour. So be it if the Supreme Court allows Trump to remain on the ballot. Everything must be done to beat him at the polls, even if the playing field is tilted in his favour, even if he does not need a majority of the popular vote and only a majority of the Electoral College, even if he can build his campaign on a mountain of lies and misinformation. Beating Trump at the polls is not just a short-term objective. Trumpism as a political philosophy is entrenched in American body politics and will not disappear as if by magic, even if Trump were to be beaten. A clear, multifaceted short and long-term game plan must be carefully thought out, developed, and implemented. Today, Trumpism rhymes with fascism. Our solemn duty is to fight back and ensure that 2024 does not rhyme with Orwell’s 1984. Leadership matters. Elections matter. Ultimately, the “City on the Hill” image dear to President Reagan needs to be re-created, and the voters have to imagine what July 4, 2026, will look like – when the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Will it be a self-sufficient President Trump presiding over a military parade in Washington declaring that to commemorate the Semiquincentennial, June 14 (his birthday) will be declared a national Federal Holiday (with a MAGA Congress rubber-stamping his decision) – thus replacing June 19 “Juneteenth and that his effigy will be sculptured on Mount Rushmore to mark the “New American Order forever”? Or will it be a modest President Harris, flanked by Vice President Walz and the leading cross-party leaders of the United States, celebrating the event by announcing that Congress has passed the Electoral College Reform Act as an Amendment to the constitution and that is being sent to the States for ratification and that Congress will celebrate the nation’s 250th anniversary with a New American Covenant to embrace the future and revitalisation of the values and principles of the Founding Fathers. And may she remember the Bicentennial Address that Hannah Arendt had written in 1975: “Home to Roost”. [v]  Similar to the current times, there was much talk of an age of decline of American power shortly after the mortifying defeat in Vietnam and the  Watergate Scandal. She wrote back in 1975: “Compare it for a moment with our position at the end of the Second World War, and you will agree that among the many unprecedented events of this century, the swift decline in the power of the United States should be given due consideration.” After having experienced first-hand the terrors of Nazism forcing her to flee Germany first to France, where she was ultimately detained as a foreign alien in 1940 before escaping to the United States through Portugal, where she spent the rest of her life, acquiring US citizenship in 1950, she always considered the US not only as a safe haven but as an example for the world. The 200 years of independence defending freedom and the values of liberty and justice were significant achievements never to be forgotten. She was a great believer in the resilience of the United States. Despite the difficult times of the mid-seventies, she was optimistic for the future and concluded her very last publication with words that would be fitting for the conclusion of Biden’s Semiquincentennial speech, should he ever have the privilege to address the nation in 2026: “While we now slowly emerge from under the rubble of the events of the last few years, let us not forget these years of aberration lest we become wholly unworthy of the glorious beginnings two hundred years ago. When the facts come home to us, let us try at least to make them welcome. Let us try not to escape into utopias—images, theories, or sheer follies. For it was the greatness of this Republic to give due account, for the sake of freedom, to the best in men and to the worst.” [i] “Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty”, Monticello , www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/eternal-vigilance-price-liberty-spurious-quotation/ [ii]  “Stenographischer Bericht 186. Sitzung Plenarprotokoll 14/186“, Deutscher Bundestag , September 12, 2021, https://dserver.bundestag.de/btp/14/14186.pdf [iii]  Brett Samuels : “Trump on Supreme Court ruling to keep him on Colorado ballot: ‘Big win for America!!!’”, The Hill , March 4, 2023, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4506438-trump-supreme-court-ruling-colorado-ballot/ [iv]  Marc Elias : “Donald Trump’s Plot Against America”, Democracy Docket , December 6, 2023, www.democracydocket.com/opinion/donald-trumps-plot-against-america/ [v]  See Chapter Two

Debunking the myths of his first term.   Passing judgment on a presidency is no easy task – mainly if the president is still alive and is seeking a second term. President Trump maintains that he would beat George Washington and Abraham Lincoln if he ran against them.” [i] Given that he has also stated that “The Art of the Deal” is the second-best book in world literature after the Bible, we can take his opinions with a large bucket of salt. But it just reinforces his narcissistic personality even more. What is more interesting is the opinion of his base, the MAGA loyalists who hope and pray for his return “to save America” Messiah-like. Their point of view is clear: Trump was the best US president ever to walk this earth. Under his administration, the economy was booming, regulations were slashed, the border was safe, and the country regained its reputation on the international stage, notably eradicating ISIS. Trump is credited as being the only president not to have started any wars on his watch, and he is a master negotiator, culminating in the Abraham Accords in the Middle East and his infamous exchange of “love letters” with the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un. In other words, glory be to Trump. The facts present a somewhat different picture. The economic recovery was on course under Obama’s second term, and Trump inherited auspicious economic conditions from which he benefited. Contrary to his numerous campaign promises, he did not get to implement a new healthcare policy, and Obamacare has become an established part of the law of the land. His only significant economic achievement was to implement major tax cuts worth 1.9 trillion USD that primarily benefited corporations, as the central provision was reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, promising a positive “trickle-down” effect. The main impact, however, has been to substantially reduce corporate tax revenues without helping workers, as many corporations took advantage of the reduced rates to either buy back their shares or increase their reserves and ultimately did not pass on any benefits to their employees by raising wages. Overall, the bill has achieved much less than promised and cost more than initially forecast. The impact on the budget deficit cannot be ignored: before COVID (more on that later), the first three years of Trump’s administration saw the deficit increase from 585 billion USD (the amount at the end of Obama’s term) to 984 billion at the end of Trump’s third year. [ii]  The actual value of the national debt also increased similarly, from 19.5 trillion USD to 22.7 trillion USD. [iii] It is a classic case of overpromising and underperforming. [iv] Trump’s immigration policy was notably characterised by undermining asylum, banning people from Muslim countries, reducing refugee admissions, attacking the Diversity Visa Program, and limiting avenues to access immigration services. “Building the wall” was the public face of his policies, but at the end of his term, only 458 miles were built, just 47 miles where no barriers existed before, paid for by the US and not Mexico to the tune of over 15 billion USD. Were his policies successful? In essence, they failed to make any significant impact on illegal immigration, as the number of illegal immigrants at the end of his term stood at 10.9 million compared to 11.3 million at the end of 2016. However, the situation at the southern border has deteriorated since the end of the COVID crisis. At the beginning of 2024, the migration issue is at the centre of a political storm. The Democrats have made significant concessions, realising that the situation needs urgent attention, and have negotiated with the Republican senators what is probably the most favourable series of measures to tackle the border crisis that the Republicans could ever hope for. Unfortunately, the Republicans, in particular in the House, under the influence so as not to stay under orders from candidate Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, are refusing to accept any compromise, however favourable it may be. They prefer to kowtow to Trump, depriving the country of much-needed urgent action so that Trump can campaign on the deteriorated situation at the border whilst blaming the Biden administration for the crisis. The Republicans’ capitulation to Trump underlines just how far they are prepared to sacrifice their principles, dignity and self-respect, favouring shameful cynicism and cowardice over courage and dedication to their country. Regarding deregulation, [v] the record is mixed, as many of the proposed changes were challenged in court. One aspect, however, is clear: the Trump administration dismantled over 100 environmental and climate-related policies, not to mention withdrawing from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, which became effective on November 4th, 2020, in stark contrast to the rest of the industrialised world. How did Trump fare on foreign policy? [vi]  Trump claims that he singlehandedly eradicated ISIS and points to the October 2019 elimination of ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as evidence thereof, as well as the fatal drone strike against Qassem Soleimani as evidence of reducing terrorist threats. The US government’s program to defeat ISIS was initiated under President Obama, who declared the elimination of ISIS a national priority, developed a plan and structure to achieve this aim and, finally, oversaw a significant part of the military campaign. Trump inherited this campaign and followed suit, declaring “new rules of engagement” and resulting in successes in the field. Once he declared victory over ISIS, he announced a pull-out of forces from Syria against the formal advice of his military advisers, resulting in the resignation of Defence Secretary James Mattis in December 2018. [vii]  Trump’s withdrawal of troops from Syria antagonised allies, weakened the official US policy on fighting terrorism and ultimately emboldened an almost extinct ISIS, allowing it to survive to fight another day. Much has been said about Trump’s major diplomatic coup in the Middle East, with the conclusion of the Abraham Accords under his watch in September 2020. These accords normalised relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, followed by other Arab states, such as Morocco, in December of the same year. While an essential set of accords, they are not as ground-breaking as portrayed primarily, as the underlying reason for the signature of the agreements was mainly to foster and develop strong economic ties between the signatories. The main political issue at the heart of the Middle East was not one of the Trump administration’s priorities. Despite lofty declarations and promises made in the name of the administration by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who up until then had no prior experience in international peace negotiations, not to mention any experience in the Middle East other than being able to relate to the issue due to his Jewish background (being an expert on a PC flight simulator does not qualify you for flying 747s), the much delayed Trump peace plan presented in January 2020 was dead on arrival. Trump had signalled his approach to the region already in May 2018 by moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and his proposed peace plan was further evidence of a significant shift in US policy away from accepting only modest changes to the 1967 border between the parties and not guaranteeing the long-term goal of a wholly Palestinian State. The “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People", as the plan was officially known, was not the result of negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel with the US as a neutral mediator but instead, a US proposal submitted with Israel and imposed on the Palestinians who were not part of the plan’s negotiation in any form or manner. Recent developments in the Middle East demonstrate that the Trump administration’s strategy was far from successful in preventing further conflict, much to the contrary. The withdrawal of Trump from the nuclear deal with Iran, painstakingly negotiated in 2015 between Iran and several powers that severely limited Iran’s nuclear program, is likewise a significant aspect of Trump’s regional policy. It appears that Trump is very good at cancelling prior agreements and withdrawing from international obligations signed by previous administrations (even more so if they were negotiated and signed by President Obama). Fast-forward to 2024, with major unrest in the Middle East instigated and supported by Iran, the wisdom of such an approach seems somewhat questionable. It is one thing promising to be “tough” and quite another to guarantee peace and stability in the region. Trump's North Korea policy was equally disruptive, culminating in the exchange of “love letters” with North Korea’s notorious dictator. Right off the bat, the notion of exchanging “love letters” with such a bloodthirsty dictator is shocking. Imagine if British Prime Minister Chamberlain had come back from his meeting in Munich with Adolf Hitler waving the peace agreement, declaring upon his arrival in London not “Peace for our time” but “I have fallen in love with Herr Hitler”. It is almost unbelievable, but on September 29th, 2018, at a rally in West- Virginia, Trump said, “We fell in love. No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters”. [viii]  It is safe to guess that Trump did not realise that he made this love declaration almost 80 years to the day after Chamberlain’s speech on September 30th, 1938. As the quote ironically attributed to Karl Marx says, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce”. In this case, the ridiculousness of the situation points to farce, but given the absolute lack of progress in Trump’s aim to contain North Korea and to achieve verifiable nuclear disarmament on the Korean peninsula, despite two summits with Kim Jong Un, let's hope that it will not turn to tragedy. However, on the current record, with the multiplication of missile testing by North Korea and increasingly aggressive rhetoric, one is justified in fearing the worst. Sending “love letters” to the leader of such a ruthless dictatorship is a disgrace. North Korea has probably the worst record of all existing countries today in human rights. To quote the reputable Human Rights Watch organisation: “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) remains one of the most repressive countries in the world. Ruled by third-generation authoritarian leader Kim Jong Un, the government responded to the  Covid-19   pandemic with deepened isolation and repression, increased ideological control, and by maintaining fearful obedience of the population by using threats of torture, extrajudicial executions, wrongful imprisonment, enforced disappearances, and forced hard labor.” [ix] The notion that Kim Jong Un is Trump’s ideal bedfellow is the pinnacle of ignominy and repudiates the essence of American values and beliefs. Betraying American ideals is the hallmark of Trump as a person and president. America betraying America may seem quixotic, but this is at the core of Americans' choice in November. In a recent town hall [x]  to reinforce what his supporters believe, Trump stated that during his term, there were no wars (and he was the first president to do so) and no terrorist attacks. Once again, more than truthful hyperbole, this statement blatantly contradicts the truth. There were two terrorist attacks – not including domestic terrorism during his term. One on December 6th, 2019, and one on December 17th, 2017. His claim about no wars depends on the definition of “war.” Since the Second World War, only four US presidents officially brought the US into new wars: Truman, Johnson, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush (respectively, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq). Other presidents did instigate military operations, some to a more considerable degree than others. Only Presidents Carter and Ford did not start a new war or escalate or start a new military operation. Like Obama before him, Trump continued the campaign against ISIS and approved targeted strikes on foreign territory. A more rigorous analysis of the Trump presidency demonstrates in terrifying detail the shortcomings, blunders, and, more importantly, the abuses of power perpetrated during his tenure as president. The list is indeed long. The following examples (in no particular order) demonstrate the point mentioned above and are far from being exhaustive, namely, the appointment of family members to strategic and vital positions making nepotism an integral part of government policy based not on prior experience or job qualifications (Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump); benefiting financially from his position as president thus promoting grift and corruption; trying to buy Greenland; abusing the bully pulpit; calling the press “the enemy of the people” in true Stalinist fashion; supporting and dog-whistling to the extreme right most notably at Charlottesville with the infamous “there were good people on both sides” and the shameful show put on after George Floyd’s death by forcefully moving protesters in front of the White House for a photo-op in front of St. John’s Church in Washington in June 2020. However, there are three main areas where Trump has fundamentally failed, not only as president but also in his duty to uphold the solemn oath he made on the day he was inaugurated: “to execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” The first domain is his relationship with authoritarian regimes, starting with Russia. Whole books have been written about his constant support of Russia and Vladimir Putin. The summit in Helsinki in July 2018 is exhibit A, B and C in this regard. Answering an AP White House Correspondent Jonathan Lemire question, Trump preferred to support and believe Vladimir Putin over his intelligence agencies. As discussed previously, Trump welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election. Although no conspiracy was proved, numerous contacts have been established, and after that, Trump has consistently refused to accept any Russian interference as a matter of principle. His support of dictators and authoritative leaders does not stop with Putin. Kim Jong Un, Turkish President Erdogan, Mohamed bin Salman Al Saud (MBS), Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and last but not least, President Xi Jinping of China all have been praised and, to various degrees, supported by Trump with concrete policy decisions and actions. In the run-up to the 2024 election in November, it is often said that Putin would never have invaded Ukraine under Trump. Need we remind people that Trump’s deliberate postponement and delay of military support to President Zelensky in 2019 led to Trump’s first impeachment, despite his “perfect” phone call with the Ukrainian president? Once again, the term “perfect” was repeated ad nauseam by Trump. Parallel to the support of authoritarian leaders, Trump demonstrated on numerous occasions his support and belief in extreme right policies based on racism and fearmongering. In the run-up to the 2024 election, Trump has more than doubled down on his support for Putin. He welcomes Russia's invasion of the NATO member states, who, based on his analysis of the situation, are “delinquent” by not spending more than 2% of their GDP on defence spending. Trump has, to date, failed to condemn Putin for the death of Alexei Navalny in a Siberian gulag, preferring to dress himself up as an American Navalny, unjustly prosecuted unfairly by the Biden “communist” regime. God forbid he would ever have to utter any criticism of Putin. Such an attitude distresses politicians in America, but the reaction in Europe is shock, disgust and extreme consternation. The European leaders understand all too well the implications of Trump’s pro-Putin policies and their significant threat to the current political order. The second major failure of the Trump presidency is managing the COVID crisis. The way Trump handled this once-in-a-century pandemic reflects all of his worst practices: politicising a significant problem, promoting outrageous conspiracy theories, bullying, and spreading hate and division, refusing to accept responsibility and laying blame on other people, lack of leadership, compounded by crass stupidity (remember the bleach comment?) [xi]  and incompetence. True to form, Trump supporters ignore the clear dereliction of duty described above and claim that Trump rose to the task by promoting the vaccine through the “Warp Speed Program” – which is ironic as misinformation on the vaccine was encouraged by the MAGA base. How a public health crisis of such magnitude is managed (or mismanaged) has immediate and direct consequences on life and death. When Trump left office, more than 400’000 people had died of COVID-19 – the “final” number would be just shy of 1.2 million by April 2023. [xii]  Of the 400’000 deaths on January 20th, 2021, some reports estimate that up to 40% were preventable. [xiii]  Trump’s record with the COVID crisis should permanently disqualify Trump from ever being elected president again. In a time of national crisis of the utmost severity, Trump failed to defend and protect American citizens. In Europe, unsurprisingly, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was similarly guilty of mismanaging the crisis in the UK, adopting a highly politicised approach whilst downplaying the severity of the threat. To make matters worse, he knowingly and deliberately defied the government’s own rules that were put in place to prevent undue contact during lockdown. Contrary to the US, a detailed inquiry exposed Boris Johnson’s failings, which played an essential role in his subsequent political downfall. Nonetheless, it seems that birds of a feather fall sick together (the use of bleach notwithstanding). Trump was not held accountable for his appalling handling of the pandemic in the US. As surprising as it may seem, the COVID crisis and its mismanagement are not the most prominent stain on Trump’s legacy. The final act of Trump’s presidency is the third area that illustrates his inadequacy as a president. Refusing to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, blatantly lying about the process and blaming wide-scale voter fraud without any tangible proof or evidence thereof, promoting this “Big Lie”, and clinging on to power for power’s sake is behaviour so egregious that one would think he would lose all support not only within the Republican party but throughout the country. Unfortunately, the contrary is true. Under the guise of “letting Trump be Trump and giving him time to process and accept his defeat”, the Republican leaders remained at best silent and, at worst, poured more oil on the flames by supporting his position despite any evidence. Trump didn’t stop there. The Big Lie was only the tip of the iceberg. The plan was to overthrow the election results and prevent Congress from certifying the electoral votes – not to delay the certification process but to replace legally cast and valid elector votes with false elector votes. Any other interpretation is far off the mark. In calling a spade a spade, absolute clarity is essential. Trump’s actions constitute a conspiracy to organise a constitutional coup and stay in power. In this case, the proverbial spade was used to dig the grave of American democracy. The violence of January 6th was but a by-product of the conspiracy – a welcome consequence from Trump’s perspective. The conspiracy of the Big Lie and the attempt to organise a constitutional coup culminating in the January 6 2021, violence and storming of the capitol broadcast globally are fundamentally in contradiction with the presidential oath of service and, notably, the obligation to protect and defend the Constitution. At the time of the riots, the scope and breadth of the violence, the mob behaviour, and the call to murder Vice President Pence were so dramatic that they justified Trump’s second impeachment. With hindsight, as terrible as the events of January 6 were, the underlying conspiracy to overturn the election results is the original sin. The temptation to compare the conspiracy to overturn the results of the election and, in essence, to overthrow the government (as in preventing the legitimate Biden administration from taking office) to fascist behaviour like the Reichstag fire in 1933 may seem to be exaggerated and unjustified. However, as mentioned previously, history does not identically repeat itself – but in this case, it repeats itself not as farce but as tragedy, one that could have been much worse if the riot had not been contained. Who knows what would have happened if Vice President Pence had refused to certify the results or if Congress had accepted a delay in the certification pending the investigation of a commission as boldly proposed, notably by Senator Ted Cruz on the Senate floor. [xiv]  Maybe the plot would not have succeeded through its bitter end. But perhaps it would have. What could have happened does not matter, as there was a clear and present danger to the core and heart of American democracy. If the comparison to fascism is too disturbing, be it the Reichstag fire and the consequences thereof, the Munich beer cellar Putsch in 1923 or Mussolini’s grand march on Rome in 1922, maybe it will make people feel better if we compare it to events from centuries past, more specifically Ancient Rome and the Catilinarian conspiracy of 63 BC. The failing Roman Republic was defended by the celebrated Roman orator and statesman Cicero, who, thanks notably to his famous speech “Against Cataline,” [xv]  saved the day and won the battle before losing the war a few years later, paying with his life the fall of the Roman Republic. In any event, a spade is a spade; a constitutional coup is a constitutional coup, and fascism is fascism, no matter how hard you try to disguise it as a walk in the park – or an innocent tourist walk around. For the outside world, it is not understandable how Trump is in contention for the presidency. In any other liberal democracy, a leader guilty of a fraction of Trump’s behaviour, as illustrated above, would be forced out of office either at the ballot box or by the political forces within, never to publicly appear again. This was true in the immediate aftermath of January 6, 2021, but it is all the more remarkable after the four criminal indictments initiated against Trump in 2023. Trump can turn a seemingly disastrous set of circumstances to his advantage and ride the wave of disapprobation and shame towards further electoral success. This is genuinely Kafkaesque in its absurdity. One can only imagine that if Trump were to wake up one day as a cockroach, like Gregor Samsa in “The Metamorphosis,” he would still find a way to capitalise on such a misfortune, and cockroaches would become the official symbol of the Republican party. [i]  Maroosha Muzaffar: Trump claims he would beat a Washington-Lincoln ticket by 40 points”, The Independent , October 7, 2022, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-george-washington-abraham-lincoln-b2196675.html [ii]  “Public debt of the United States from 1990 to 2023”, Statista , www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/ [iii]   “How Much Did President Trump Add to the Debt?”, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget , January 10, 2024, www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-trump-add-debt [iv]  For more details, see the CBO Outlook Report 2020-2030 [v]  Nadia Popovich, Livia Albeck-Ripka and Kendra Pierre-Louis: ”The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List”, The New York Times , January 20,  2021, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html [vi]   ”Bluster, Donald’s Trump War on Terror”, Chapter 6 [vii]  Jeffrey Goldberg : ”The man who couldn’t take it anymore”, The Atlantic,  October 2019 Issue, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/10/james-mattis-trump/596665/ [viii]   www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1MA03L/ [ix]  Tirana Hassan : “World Report 2023:North Korea Events of 2022”, Human Rights Watch , www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/north-korea [x]  Glenn Kessler: “Trump falsely claims ‘no terrorist attacks’ and ‘no wars’ during his presidency“, The Washington Post , January 13, 2024, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/13/trump-falsely-claims-no-terrorist-attacks-no-wars-during-his-presidency/ [xi]  “Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment”, BBC News , April 24, 2020, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177 [xii]  “Total number of cases and deaths from COVID-19 in the United States as of April 26, 2023”, Statista , www.statista.com/statistics/1101932/coronavirus-covid19-cases-and-deaths-number-us-americans/?gclid=CjwKCAiAk9itBhASEiwA1my_685ZMkcF-RnpJseldAsm2CGECwrRSPrtBCsTvFe08R2g7OVP9RUR1hoCVZQQAvD_BwE [xiii]  Amanda Holpuch : “US could have averted 40% of Covid deaths, says panel examining Trump's policies”, The Guardian , February 11, 2021, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/10/us-coronavirus-response-donald-trump-health-policy [xiv]  Jeremy Wallace: ”What Sen. Ted Cruz said as he led the Jan. 6 effort to block President Joe Biden’s win”, The Houston Chronicle, January 6, 2022,  www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/What-Sen-Ted-Cruz-said-as-he-led-the-Jan-6-16752820.php   CHAPTER SEVEN   [xv]  “Cicero: In Catilinam”, IB Notes , https://ibnotes.tripod.com/Subjects/Latin/catiline1.pdf

A World of Sycophants and Enablers Make no mistake. As gifted as Trump is in his way, he could not have been successful in a vacuum. He needed assistance and help to become president of the United States. History matters. Events are not random. The election of Barack Obama on November 4th, 2008, was a bellwether event that resounded worldwide: the election of the first African American president in the history of the United States. Whatever his politics, the mere fact that he was elected was a significant event and gave immense hope not only to the American people but to the world as a whole, illustrated by the fact that democracy and American democracy, in particular, had been able to deliver such a result barely 45 years after Martin Luther’s King famous “I have a dream” speech. What an achievement and a testament to American society’s strength, maturity, and vitality. An example of the free world. Remember the headlines of the world’s newspapers as the Times of London illustrated: “The new world. America elects Barack Obama, its first black president”. Unfortunately, the backlash to Obama’s historical election was swift and pernicious. He was depicted as an ape and other such flagrant racist imagery. His faith was questioned (maybe he was a Muslim, after all?). His legitimacy was challenged through the so-called “birther movement” championed within the Republican party. Still, in his typical fashion, Trump co-opted what started as a fringe conspiracy theory and made it his own. So much so that he was able to gain traction and attract attention to himself, allowing him to consider an actual presidential campaign seriously. His political instincts were spot on as he also understood that there was a backlash to Obama’s historic election, a backlash fuelled by old-fashioned racism. The birther movement championed by Trump gave legitimacy to those who wanted to find a way to channel their racism and challenge Obama. Adding insult to injury, Obama’s very public takedown of Trump at the now infamous 2011 White House Correspondents Association dinner gained a lot of attention as it was also concurrent with the successful raid and subsequent killing of Bin Laden. The juxtaposition of the shaming of Trump and one of the finest hours of Obama’s presidency did not serve Trump well. Trump himself has always maintained that this was not a reason for his deciding to run for president and that he was honoured to be the butt of Obama’s jokes (he was far less gracious about Seth Meyers jokes), and from a factual perspective, it is true that Trump had already considered a presidential run in the past. Nonetheless, the narrative soon took on a life of its own, setting the stage for what was to happen after that. The politics of the far right historically thrive on the politics of shame and vengeance, and Trump’s humiliation, whether real or imagined, is an essential reference point in Trump’s access to power. Incidentally, during Obama’s last White House Correspondents dinner in April 2016, he also made a series of jokes about “The Donald”, but as Trump was not physically present at the time and as it was in the middle of the primary battle for the Republican nomination, such attention served Trump very well. Be as it may, the timing of Trump’s presidential campaign arrived at an auspicious moment. The Republican party saw the end of the Obama presidency as a unique opportunity to regain the presidency after gaining complete control of Congress in the 2014 elections. Mitch McConnell’s refusal to allow a full hearing before the Senate of Obama’s nominee to fill a seat in the Supreme Court after Antonin Scalia’s passing in March 2016 was a political move that had far-reaching consequences. After the successful election of Trump in 2016, a conservative named by the new President Trump, namely Neil Gorsuch, filled the vacant seat, the first of three successful nominations for Trump. The continued policy of total obstruction followed by the Republican party during Obama’s second term, illustrated by the refusal to vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, hardened the political landscape and made bipartisanship the mother of all evils. Combined with the vilification of the Democrats and President Obama in person with more and more extreme language, it set the stage for the advent of Donald Trump, who famously declared during the 2016 Republican Convention, “I alone can fix it”. [i] The momentum was clearly in the Republican’s favour, and with the advent of the so-called Tea Party movement in 2009 in response to Obama’s election, the Republican party was shifting towards the right and by the time of the 2016 election cycle, the Freedom Caucus under its then Chairman Jim Jordan lent its full support to the Trump campaign. Subsequently, during the first years of his administration under the newly elected chairman Mark Meadows at the beginning of December 2016, the Freedom Caucus played a fundamental role in building and strengthening Trump’s base in the Republican party. When Trump kicked off his presidential campaign in June 2015, most, if not all, observers and political analysts didn’t give him any chance of success. Given his unorthodox rhetoric and habit of going against virtually all established rules of political campaigning, his opponents for the 2016 nomination expected him to disqualify himself by his unruly behaviour. A case in point was his attack on John McCain in July 2015, declaring that “He’s not a war hero”. [ii] Immediately after that, all the Republican candidates for the nomination attacked him and claimed that he was unfit to be commander-in-chief, but to no avail, as such rhetoric served Trump by attracting attention to himself. This pattern would repeat itself throughout the nomination campaign. They recognised that he was generating a lot of controversy. Still, they believed this would not translate into real political support and votes and that he would never win the Republican nominee campaign. Ultimately, they were too concerned with each other and declined to attack Trump in unison. As he continued to face an ongoing split field, Trump's chances increased as time went by. Trump’s unique personal campaign style was also crucial to his success in 2016. Initially considered childish and somewhat silly, using nicknames for his opponents was a very effective tactic. Trump was able to caricature each of his opponents in an accessible and relatable manner, thus defining them in the eyes of the voters. There were underlying political reasons for Trump’s surprise victory in 2016. One of the main reasons was Trump’s focus on immigration, which struck a chord with blue-collar white voters. The Democrats' loss of this demographic was fatal for Clinton, who most probably underestimated Trump and made the mistake of treating half of Trump’s voters as “deplorable”. [iii]  The late intervention of the FBI Director in the campaign also played a role. However, Clinton failed to dispel Trump's caricature of her. The “crooked Hilary” moniker proved costly, and Clinton’s relative absence on the campaign trail, particularly in the Midwest, was a fatal mistake. Trump’s victory in 2016 was a genuine surprise even for himself, and he was not prepared for winning the election. But once he walked through the doors of the White House, he was only at the beginning of his populist revolution. At this juncture, it is worthwhile asking what the main elements of Trump’s political philosophy are. On which basis was he first elected in 2016, and was he able to deliver on his promises? Trump’s main rallying cry for his 2015-2016 campaign was “Make America Great Again”, a slogan he stated he had invented, whereas in reality, he “borrowed” it from Ronald Reagan, who had first used it in 1980. He combined it with “America First”, a philosophy that harkens back to President Wilson’s initial desire to keep America out of the First World War, which later developed very quickly from an isolationist creed to an anti-immigration platform. It became very popular with the fascist sympathisers in the US in the 1930s, personified by Charles Lindbergh. Right from the outstart, with his first speech at the launch of his campaign in 2015, Trump set the stage in straightforward but clear terms. Given the historical context of both phrases, it shouldn’t have been too difficult to see where Trump’s political beliefs lay; they were staring us in the face. His emphasis on taking a firm stance on immigration, using highly controversial language against immigrants right from the start and promising “to build a wall” clearly positioned him on the far right of the political spectrum. He was not the only politician to defend such views. Still, with the rhetoric mentioned above and his genius of political marketing, he was able to capture the souls and minds of a significant part of the American population, in particular, the blue-collar, non-college-educated working class feeding on their sense of grievance of having been left behind in the modern world. Trump was also encouraging and taking advantage of the backlash against the election of the first African American president and legitimising what, in reality, was fundamental racism. This philosophy was a source of pride in Trump’s inaugural address: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America first.” [iv] Trump had wanted to run for president for many years. His political beliefs are not based on years of conviction, as he was initially a Democrat supporting Bill and Hilary Clinton in the 1990s and 2000s. He saw a presidential run as a tool to promote his brand and himself first and foremost—it was more a case of “Trump first” rather than “America first.” However, despite a lack of experience in politics and with less than a professional structure and organisation to support him throughout his campaign, he was supported and helped by key people from the fringes of American politics, one none more critical than Steve Bannon. Bannon provided Trump with a strong foundation for his political program and gave real power and structure to Trump’s populist and alt-right instincts (not to mention much need funding through his connections to the far-right donor base). Bannon officially joined Trump’s campaign in August 2016 and immediately pushed Trump to focus on the opposition and Hilary Clinton. Without Bannon’s support and intellectual firepower, it is fair to say that Trump would not have been elected. Trump hates anybody overshadowing him and will always maintain that he is the sole architect of his success. It was no surprise that after joining the administration as Chief Strategist, Bannon was pushed out in August 2017. Nonetheless, nobody can take away Bannon’s role as the first enabler of Trump – the first of many to come. The traditional Republican party was slow to accept Trump into its fold. There always was an underlying belief that he would not have what it takes to be elected. When Trump won the nomination, after having relentlessly shamed and destroyed his primary opponents, they understood too late the strength of Trump’s unorthodox approach to politics and his appeal as an outsider and a self-made successful billionaire, however true that was. Despite winning the nomination, Trump almost lost all hope of being elected with the infamous Access Hollywood tape episode that erupted on October 7th, 2016, one month before the election. The scandal was such that from one day to the next, Trump lost practically all support from the Republicans who ran for cover collectively so as not to be associated with Trump (even though officially key supporters such as Vice President nominee Mike Pence and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not call for his resignation), so much so that only Rudy Giuliani was prepared to defend Trump publicly on TV immediately after the publication of the tape. Any other politician wouldn’t have survived. But Trump refused to buckle under pressure and counter-attacked immediately during the second presidential debate that took place two days later, attempting to deflect attention by attacking Bill Clinton on his supposed nefarious track record with women, going so far as to invite to the event the women who had accused the previous president of misconduct. Trump also got a helping hand on October 8th, when Wikileaks published leaked emails from Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. This was not the first time that Wikileaks had published such sensitive information: on July 22nd, a similar collection of emails from the DNC was released. The US government formally accused Russia of conducting cyberwarfare and interfering in the US election hours before the October 8th leak. The potential involvement of Russia in supporting Donald Trump’s presidential bid became even more critical in the aftermath of the 2016 election, as illustrated by the Muller investigation. Trump’s positive attitude toward Russia and his continued support of Vladimir Putin, whom he holds in high esteem both before being elected president and, more importantly, during his presidency, have always been most unusual for an American president going against all precedent. Russian support for Trump, whether public or covert, given the pro-Putin stance advocated by Trump, has always been highly suspicious and remains so to this day. The recent developments in the sham attempt by the Republicans to impeach President Biden have once again drawn attention to the continued threat of Russian intervention in the 2024 campaign. The supposedly “highly credible” star witness trumpeted by the Republicans, a certain Mr Alexander Smirnov, has been charged by federal prosecutors for lying to the FBI, and it turns out he has close links to Russian intelligence. [v]   Even with the covert support of Russia and the army of Russian trolls working on social media to help Trump get elected in 2016, the chances of success were slim. Trump relied on his instincts that the American people were yearning for change and were looking for an outsider as a new champion. The Republican party, which was already being transformed by the Tea Party and moving inexorably to the right in combination with the avowed “politics of obstruction” initiated by Mitch McConnell, set the stage for a figure such as Trump, who, like all best showmen, was able to seize the stage and take advantage of the moment dramatically. Resistance to his rise was minimal on the Republican side as soon as Trump gathered momentum and methodically eliminated his challengers one by one through sheer bluster, uncanny street-fighting skills, instincts and smarts, and a previously unseen level of self-confidence in the face of adversity. Surrounded by family and a tight-knit circle of sycophantic true believers, the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement became the defining force in US politics. The more traditional Republican politicians, such as Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama (who was the first Senator to support Trump), flocked to Trump as bees (or wasps) to honey primarily for political expediency, with Mitch McConnell approvingly looking on from his lofty position as Majority Leader in the Senate. A new form of brash politics was the name of the game. Supporting Trump was seen as a means for many to implement a much-desired far-right government, prioritising the nomination of arch-conservative judges at all levels, most notably at the Supreme Court level. And boy did the judicial gods smile on Trump, giving him not one, not two, but three chances to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. As Trump was unprepared to serve as president, he had no plans to staff his administration. Although the ex-Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, had run his transition team and had come up with a detailed plan and list of potential candidates, all of his excellent work was thrown in the dustbin due to the influence of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Jared Kushner had a severe problem with Christie as he was the prosecutor who had charged his father, Charles Kushner, and negotiated a plea deal in 2005 with him, under which the elder Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 counts of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. Kushner Senior was sentenced to two years in prison. It shows you that blood runs thicker than the national interest. Trump had to start from scratch, and naturally, he turned to family as his first source. His daughter and her husband, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, were hired as senior white house advisors despite not having any prior government experience or relevant experience. It was not unheard of for presidents to hire family members (John F. Kennedy famously named his brother Robert as Attorney General). Still, in Trump’s case, nepotism was clearly at play here. In theory, hiring them was illegal following anti-nepotism regulations that four previous presidents had scrupulously followed based on a 1967 law that had passed in Congress. [vi]  Kushner’s lawyer was instrumental in reinterpreting the statute that referred to appointments in an “agency” and successfully argued that the provision did not cover the president’s office as it was not an “agency”. While serving in the White House, Jared Kushner was tasked with numerous responsibilities, notably brokering peace in the Middle East, pursuing diplomacy with countries such as Mexico and China, leading an “Office for American Innovation”, and overseeing fundraising. During the COVID pandemic, he was given the vital role of procuring medical supplies, which he promptly outsourced to private-sector volunteers with even less experience than he had in this essential area. His efforts were not successful. [vii]   The wide range of responsibilities would have already represented a tremendous burden for the most seasoned political experts, but the younger Kushner needed to gain experience in spades. No matter, he was family, and what matters to Trump above all else is loyalty, not to the United States or the Constitution but to himself. [viii] Ivanka Trump often accompanied her father on international travels. She raised eyebrows on several occasions, notably at G20 summits, when her interactions with world leaders were met with frank surprise and sometimes irritation that was difficult to hide. [ix]  When Trump crossed the demarcation line in the demilitarised zone between South and North Korea, a noteworthy moment in its own right, Ivanka was right behind and graced North Korea with her presence. One of the most memorable and unusual scenes of a presidency that counted many took place at the first meeting of Trump’s entire cabinet on June 12th 2017. Trump opened the meeting and demanded praise from the attendees, and for over twenty minutes, all of the cabinet members duly expressed in the most subservient manner possible their support to Trump, with a few exceptions of people who still had the remnant of a spine and who deflected as best as possible. This scene was immediately made available to all networks and cable TV. [x]  One can only imagine what they offered Trump as birthday gifts two days later. This episode demonstrates the importance of flattery to Trump and his constant need for praise. It is impossible to imagine such a ridiculous display of allegiance taking place in any other Western liberal democracy, as such antics are more the hallmark of authoritarian regimes. It is good that ridicule has never killed anyone, but failure to express the right degree of servitude has. Just ask Mr Kim Jong Un, Trump’s loving penpal. As described above, not all initial people who joined Trump’s administration were inexperienced or morally challenged sycophants. Several eminent specialists in their respective fields and men who could boast stellar careers in the US military were part of the administration. Individuals such as Defence Secretary James (Jim) Mattis, Secretary of State  Rex Tillerson, an erstwhile CEO of ExxonMobil and John Kelly, who served first as Secretary of Homeland Security and then as Chief of Staff, come to mind as the so-called “adults in the room”. They saw it as their duty to serve the United States and the Constitution to the best of their abilities and not to the president personally, believing they could compensate for Trump’s lack of experience and knowledge in critical areas. They were not the only ones who tried to prevent  Trump from steering the ship into an iceberg but to no avail. Despite promising to hire the “best and the brightest” [xi] during his campaign, many, if not all, of the adults couldn’t stay the course and were forced out of the administration one way or another. Trump devised a handy method to appoint “acting” cabinet members to avoid having them confirmed by the Senate. The interesting question is why some people could survive working for Trump and his family members as Ivanka and Kushner played an essential role behind the scenes, always seeking to promote themselves, often at the expense of anybody they saw as a threat, which happened to be most people. Despite frequently firing people and getting tired of them after initially incensing them,  there never was a lack of candidates to fill dead men’s shoes. Once again, we can turn to Hannah Arendt, who analysed this question in great detail while examining totalitarianism’s inner workings. In essence, it is not power that corrupts; it is the aura of power:” Its glamorous trappings, more than power itself, attracts”. [xii]  Tellingly, she adds an important observation that is all the more relevant today: that the central figure of totalitarianism, i.e., in our case, Trump, was already corrupt long before attaining power. The same logic applies to the members of the Republican party in Congress who did not seek to join the administration. For people such as Mitch McConnell, they wanted to use Trump to implement their political agenda. Political expediency was and still is the primary motivator for politicians to unashamedly renounce previous views, even if it means adopting new positions in stark opposition to their original opinions that were anathema to them. Two cases immediately come to mind: Congresswoman Elise Stefanik and newly elected Senator J. D. Vance, author of “The Hillibilly Elegy”, who once declared that Trump was “the American Hitler” but who has become one of his most staunch supporters. [xiii]  Both politicians are currently vying for the role of vice president. That explains it all. Fear of Trump’s base also explains why so many Republicans refuse to express publicly their disdain for Trump. However, in private conversations off the record to journalists, they are not shy about expressing such opposing views. [xiv]  American politicians seek re-election every two years in the House of Representatives and every six in the Senate. Even if they are elected in a traditionally safe red state seat, if they alienate Trump, they take the risk of enduring the wrath of his core supporters (not to mention Trump’s anger) and suffer defeat in the primaries to a Trump-approved alternative. Most politicians are not known for their courage and prefer to succumb to political cowardice to protect their seats, even at the country’s expense. The notion of loyalty to Trump was apparent at the beginning of his presidency. It became even more of an issue after the 2020 election and during the transition period that should have been a peaceful power transfer. On January 6 2021, many Trump supporters expressed their horror and dismay and publicly disowned Trump, only to change their minds very quickly as they were confronted with the risk of having to endure the wrath of the Trump base. Thankfully, some politicians dare to understand that what matters is loyalty to the Constitution and to the country, not to one man, however popular he may be amongst his base. Every Stefanik and Vance has a  Liz Cheney and an Adam Kinzinger, who have the moral core to distinguish between good and evil and are prepared to take the right action to defend the country, even when it means sacrificing their political careers. As Arendt skilfully wrote, “Total loyalty is possible only when fidelity is emptied of all concrete content, from which changes of mind might naturally arise.” [i]   Politico Staff : "Full text: Donald Trump 2016 RNC draft speech transcript”, Politico , July 21, 2016, www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974 [ii]   Catherine Lucey and Steve Peoples: ”Trump on John McCain: ‘I like people who weren’t captured’”, AP News , July 19, 2015,  https://apnews.com/article/id-cde31d2fa3a244d29de77b31a59b799a [iii]   Katie Reilly: ”Read Hillary Clinton’s ‘Basket of Deplorables’ Remarks About Donald Trump Supporters “, The Time Magazine , September 10, 2016, https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/ [iv]  INAUGURAL CEREMONY; Congressional Record Vol. 163, No. 11 [v]  Martin Pengelly: ”Russia-linked Biden accuser charged with lying? Who cares, Republicans say”, Guardian , February 22, 2024, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/22/alexander-smirnov-russia-republicans-biden [vi]   Greg Price: “Trump Put Ivanka and Jared In The White House After Past Presidents Were Told it Was Unlawful”, Newsweek, October 3, 2027, Newsweek , October 3rd 2017, www.newsweek.com/trump-ivanka-jared-kushner-nepotism-676743 [vii]  Doug Mills: ”How Kushner’s Volunteer Force Led a Fumbling Hunt for Medical Supplies”, The New York Times , Published May 5, 2020, updated May 10, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/jared-kushner-fema-coronavirus.html [viii]  Paul Waldman: ”What Trump really means when he demands ‘loyalty’”, The Washington Post , February 1, 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/02/01/what-trump-really-means-when-he-demands-loyalty/ [ix]  Rym Momtaz and Nahal Toosi: ”French say oops on viral Ivanka moment”, Politico , July 1, 2019, www.politico.com/story/2019/07/01/france-ivanka-trump-reaction-1392084 [x]  “President Donald Trump Is Praised — By The Cabinet He Appointed “, The New York Times , https://youtu.be/JCMigZq0_zE?si=IgZOG7YiKSOBx6Ly [xi]  Gary A. Garfield: ”What happened to the ‘best and most serious people’?”, The Hill , April 5, 2018, https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/381364-what-happened-to-the-best-and-most-serious-people/ [xii]  Arendt, “Home to Roost: A Bicentennial Address”,1975 [xiii]  Nick Evans: “Vance wondered whether Trump was ‘America’s Hitler,’ says former roommate sharing screenshot“, Ohio Capital Journal , April 19, 2022, https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/04/19/americas-hitler-old-j-d-vance-message-turns-up-in-heated-senate-primary/ [xiv]  Sarah Ellison: ”Republicans have ‘concerns’ about Trump — but won’t let reporters quote them by name about it”, The Washington Post , December 11, 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/republicans-anonymous-private-concerns-media/2020/12/10/301e98a6-2e75-11eb-bae0-50bb17126614_story.html

The F-Word Taboo in Politics has been Broken This is a call to arms to prevent the horror of the past from taking over America. Let us start by reading a detailed excerpt from the book “War” by Bob Woodward, published on October 15, 2024. "Two days later, on Monday, March 6, 2023, I attended a reception at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. We gotta talk," General Milley said as I approached him. Milley was not in uniform but wearing a fashionable dark sports coat and plaid shirt. He had a freshly showered look and he seemed relaxed, though he stood barrel-chested with the ramrod-straight posture of an Army general. Milley was still worried about Trump. "No one has ever been as dangerous to this country as Donald Trump," Milley said. "Do you realize, do you see what this man is? I glimpsed it when I talked to you back for "Peril", but I now know it. I now know it." Milley had shared with me his worries about Trump's mental stability and control of nuclear weapons for the book Peril I coauthored with Robert Costa. Milley and I continued to talk, proving it is possible to have a very pri­ private conversation in the middle of a crowded room. "We have got to stop him!" Milley said. "You have got to stop him!" By "you" he meant the press broadly. "He is the most dangerous person ever. I had suspicions when I talked to you about his mental decline and so forth, but now I realise he's a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country." His eyes darted around the room filled with 200 guests of the Cohen Group, a global business consulting firm headed by former defence sec­ secretary William Cohen. Cohen and former Defense Secretary James Mattis spoke at the reception. "A fascist to the core!" Milley repeated to me. I will never forget the intensity of his worry." It is not an exaggeration to say that this description of Trump by the former United States Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff is the most damming statement ever uttered by somebody who worked closely with former President Trump during his last term as President. General Milley crossed the Rubicon by calling Trump “a fascist to the core”. This is not a case of a political hack trying to attract attention to himself. General Milley is a decade-long member of the US military with a stellar reputation and record of service, including multiple combat deployments. During his retirement speech in 2023, he said : "We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.” A wannabe dictator is not an accidental phrase. It clearly refers to Trump. Former Joint Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley The use of the so called “F-word” in politics is taboo. Calling somebody a fascist is the most serious of attacks and is often dismissed out of hand as an exaggeration or hyperbole. However, in this case, it comes from the former Chief of Staff, a man above reproach and, as such, has to be taken seriously. I have devoted a whole book on the topic, “A Call to Arms. It’s Fascism, Stupid,” and I have scrupulously described in great detail why calling Trump a fascist is not only warranted but necessary. I am happy to see that people of the calibre of General Milley are clearly speaking out and confirming what I have believed all long. The second edition of the book, written after Kamala Harris’ nomination at the top of the Democratic ticket, focuses more on her philosophy, namely “The Politics of Joy”. But make no mistake. On November 5th we have to choose between fascism and joy, between tyranny and democracy and between subjugation and freedom. We cannot ignore what is staring us in the face. We cannot forget what we are seeing with our own eyes and hearing with our own ears each and every day as candidate Trump spells out in clear terms and in an ever-increasingly extreme manner what he plans to do if and when he is re-elected as President. His program is a fascist program. Period. It is high time to call it out for what it is and to call a spade a spade. Failing to do so will mean we are burying American democracy six feet under.