The democratic tsunami, Trump’s defeat and the uncertainties facing America. Insights from the mid-term elections

An imperial presidency? The American republic is alive and well. In 126 years of mid-term elections, the party in the White House has lost seats in the House in 90 per cent of cases and in the Senate in 75 per cent. Even Donald Trump is subject to the force of political gravity, just like Bush and Obama before him. MAGA has taken such a beating that it will never recover. The Democrats have also won thanks to the Seyeds and the Socialists (and there is little cause for celebration). Trump has been punished for the least ‘Trumpian’ choice: a war in the Middle East in an attempt to bring about regime change in Tehran. So the Iranians have also won; they are now watching – just like (and alongside) the Chinese – as Trump’s corpse is passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Israel, above all, has lost out; on both the left and the right, it is the most toxic word.

For the Republican Party – or what remains of it after the years of Trumpism – this is an epic blow. Voters did not look at individual candidates; they took aim at all the targets coloured red. Whether they were unthinkable scoundrels or respectable moderates. It was a vote against Trump. The best comment was spotted on X: “Pete Hegseth wanted a public execution. He got one.” Some argue that, amid the rubble and with the Trump hurricane having passed, rebuilding will be easier. That remains uncertain, however, because today’s America is no longer the city that lights up the world from the hill; it has become more of an arena where people roll about on the ground, and such contests often end badly.

It was not merely a matter of petrol and fertiliser prices. When elections of historic significance, such as the one that has just taken place in the United States, come around, one cannot limit oneself to an analysis based solely on a few economic factors, however important they may be. Nor is it enough to reduce the mid-term election result to a referendum for or against Donald Trump. We are facing something deeper: a desire for change that does not seem set to stop here. There is much to explore and understand within the vote. There is the cost of living, but there is also anger at the excessive wealth of some and the lack of a safety net for so many others. There is artificial intelligence, which undoubtedly holds promise, but which many – especially young people – still see as a threat in the hands of a few, or as an unwelcome presence in rural communities in the form of anonymous, gigantic data centres. America is telling us something more than just anger over Hormuz, and it is doing so by choosing political figures capable of inspiring and aiming high, after years of political mudslinging.

Here in Kyiv, where I am at the moment, the US mid-term elections have weighed heavily on the situation. Faced with plummeting approval ratings and rising prices – particularly for fuel – Donald Trump has sought to shift the blame onto Ukraine by condemning the attacks on Russian refineries and signing agreements with Vladimir Putin. The Americans have not followed their president down this path – they remain hostile towards Russia, even Republican voters – but the Ukrainians have paid the price for this about-turn in terms of lives lost and a further distancing from the possibility of negotiations, for it is well known that only when pressure is on Moscow can the Russians consider it worthwhile to agree to at least an energy truce. The rise in prices has been driven by the mismanagement of the war in Iran – which is ‘Trump’s war’ – and, in the face of the Democrats’ landslide victory, even the president has had to admit as much. Ukraine is left with further, fresh scars caused by this past month of misunderstandings (with the Americans): in Ukrainian discussions today, in the wake of Trump’s recent defeat, some are celebrating because Victoria Spartz, the first US congresswoman born in Ukraine, has lost her seat in Indiana – in 2022 she supported Kyiv, but then voted against aid to Kyiv, aligning herself with the Trump supporters; others are pinning their hopes on the incoming Congress, on two issues in particular: the possibility, as Democratic representatives have often stated, of resuming the financial support for Ukraine that has been suspended by this administration; the possibility of addressing the so-called ‘Musk problem’, namely the fact that a private entity can arbitrarily jeopardise the security of a great many countries, as it did in recent weeks by scaling back the operation of its satellite constellation over the Ukrainian front. Elon Musk is among the major losers of this election: the half a billion dollars he invested in Republican candidates (including 100 million in Texas) was not enough. The hope for the next US administration is that Ukraine will once again become a matter of Western security, rather than square kilometres to be ceded to an aggressor who has not even conquered them.

I must admit I did not anticipate this outcome. While it is commendable to remain optimistic and rational in true Il Foglio style, the current showdown appears to be excessive. Observers are now wondering what will become of the technoligarchs who have been courting The Donald; the blame for the situation in Iran may be attributed to Hegseth’s tattoos, while Vance and Rubio are already being criticized in the run-up to Thanksgiving next Thursday, the 26th. Will Trump be a lame duck or a furious one? Perhaps he’ll be a turkey too, but stuffed with arrogance. The real question is who the winners are: is a new generation of Democrats – Latinos, Italians, Black people, Christians – really emerging, in which socialists are a minority, as always?

I dream of California (but without the taxes). Amidst the Democratic tsunami, there is one significant issue that has withstood the blue wave: taxation. In California, the richest state and home to the most flamboyant ‘tech bros’, the ballot paper also featured the infamous ‘Proposition 40’ – a hefty 5 per cent wealth tax on assets exceeding a billion dollars – which appears not to have passed (Californians take their time with the count). Many had fled to Florida to avoid paying it: Brin and Page, the founders of Google, and Peter Thiel. One who stayed was Mark Zuckerberg; perhaps, with his social media, he knew something we didn’t. Elon Musk, on the other hand, had emigrated to neighbouring Texas, spending a fortune in the process. There, however, he now finds himself with both the senator and the governor being Democrats, with Talarico set to give him a hard time. One can imagine Talarico, like his namesake from the 1960s, tormenting Musk—a modern-day Alberto Sordi with his buck teeth in I Complessi at the RAI audition: “Carry on, carry on, Musk,” until he stumbles—oh well.