World
The editor’s editorial •
Signs of optimism to be drawn from the resounding defeat of the Trump agenda
Putinism does not win votes, nationalism offers no benefits, and protectionism and isolationism lead to election defeats
Donald Trump’s resounding defeat is of epoch-making proportions and is destined to go down in history. The incredible number of states he lost after having dominated them two years ago, the Democrats’ victories in states that were once considered out of reach, the rejection of Trump’s chosen candidates and the simultaneous shift in the balance of power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate – a circumstance that has occurred in mid-term elections only four times before now: Trump’s defeat—he had suggested to Americans that they should vote as if his name were on the ballot paper, and voters took him at his word—tells us a great deal not only about the dysfunction of the last two years of the US presidency. It also tells us a great deal about another important factor concerning a crucial issue: the inability of nationalist movements to deliver benefits to their own voters. Trump lost in the mid-term elections, but with him, certain ideas he had put forward also lost ground. The idea that extreme protectionism could be a useful tool for protecting voters’ interests has lost ground. The idea that a trade war waged against Europe could bring benefits to American citizens has lost ground. The idea that building golden bridges to dictators, such as Putin, and launching campaigns to delegitimise countries under attack, such as Ukraine, could yield any electoral benefit has been defeated. The idea that a president who shapes his foreign policy guided more by a desire to pursue personal business interests than by a desire to create opportunities for his own country could go unnoticed has been defeated. He has lost sight of the idea that wars against autocracies can be waged without deploying the necessary force to prevent the dictators from being strengthened. Above all, he has lost sight of the idea that a president who bets heavily on isolationism, sovereignty and nationalism can achieve positive results for his own country. It is unclear what scenarios the defeat of Trumpism in America will bring, but it does mark the tail end of an interesting phenomenon that a significant part of the West has been grappling with for months. Over the last two years, nationalism has been halted, in various ways: in Brazil, with Lula’s victory over Flávio Bolsonaro; In Serbia, with Vucic’s defeat. In Hungary, with Orbán’s defeat. In Canada, with Carney’s victory. In the Netherlands, with Wilders’ defeat. In Romania, with the defeat of the pro-Trump Simion. Nationalism in Europe could still hold some unpleasant surprises in store, perhaps one day in Germany with the AfD, and in the United Kingdom with Farage – a United Kingdom which, speaking of nationalisms showing their true colours, has never been as close to the European Union as it is today, since voters said ‘yes’ to Brexit. At present, in Europe, the only form of nationalism that seems likely to survive is that which presents itself as moderate. This is evident in France with Le Pen, who for months has been trying to distance herself from Trumpism, and in Italy with Meloni, who has enjoyed a degree of success in part because she has kept her nationalist agenda separate from the government’s. Trump’s defeat may prove a blessing for America; it may also open up opportunities for Europe within any future Yalta-style conferences. But the rejection of nationalism may have interesting consequences in the rest of the world, insofar as it will make clear what has happened with the many ‘-isms’ represented by Trump. Putinism does not win votes, protectionism does not win support, isolationism does not deliver results, anti-Europeanism does not bring benefits, and nationalism does not offer opportunities. Trumpism has emerged from Trump’s last two years in office badly battered, and not just in America. The enemies of Trumpism now know better than ever what they must fight against. It now remains to be seen what they will propose as an alternative to Trump, without managing the miracle of being more populist than the battered ‘populist-in-chief’.
More on these topics
Nasce a Palermo nel 1982, vive a Roma da parecchio tempo, lavora al Foglio dal 2005 e da gennaio 2015 è direttore. Ha scritto qualche libro (“Le catene della destra” e “Le catene della sinistra”, con Rizzoli, “Io non posso tacere”, con Einaudi, “Tra l’asino e il cane. Conversazione sull’Italia”, con Rizzoli, “La Presa di Roma”, con Rizzoli, e "Ho visto l'uomo nero", con Castelvecchi), è su Twitter.
E’ interista, ma soprattutto palermitano. Va pazzo per i Green Day, gli Strokes, i Killers, i tortini al cioccolato e le ostriche ghiacciate. Due figli.