American Trumpism, European Tropism

The Europeans have de facto lost on the military front, despite the massive financial and logistical aid from the collective West, to borrow the Kremlin leader’s expression, which he contrasts with the Global South. They have lost ipso jure on the diplomatic front, since U.S.-Russia negotiations have begun without them, and bilateral resolutions will have to possess the force of law. They have lost a posteriori on the economic front, given their triumphalist predictions that the Russian economy would be annihilated within months; instead, it is their own economies that are struggling. As shocking as this statement may be, they have also a priori lost on the axiological front because, in both Russian and Western narratives, the stakes of this war were not merely geopolitical but also profoundly civilizational.

The conflict has opposed two models with radically antagonistic paradigms: on one side, democracies driven by unrestrained individualism, hyper-libertarianism, hedonism, de-Christianization, denationalization in a full-blown moral and spiritual crisis, open to their enemies, as Karl Popper put it; and on the other, an authoritarian and freedom-restricting yet popular Russian regime, hyper-sovereigntist, undergoing nationalist exaltation and Orthodox revival—similar, by the way, to Hinduism under Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and to Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, as observed in our Chinese friends. Two great powers, co-founders of the BRICS, which had certainly condemned Russia’s military action, but without severing ties with the Russian state. Initially, this was also the very cautious position of President Macron before his abrupt about-face.

Illusionary Threat and Existential Peril

In this acknowledged defeat, the cruelest part for Europeans is not just having mistaken their enemy but, above all, their friend. As popular wisdom teaches, one can also be betrayed by one’s own kind—a notion that aligns with the most simplistic Machiavellianism. To be the enemy of the Americans is dangerous, to be their friend is fatal,” Kissinger warned. On the subject of betrayal, Chirac’s France knows a thing or two! For having heroically resisted American hubris in 2003—unlike the British, Polish, Norwegians, Spanish… and Ukrainians—France was subjected to all forms of accusations and trade sanctions. At the time, Condoleezza Rice declared that the U.S. must “punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia.”

But in the present case, can we truly speak of betrayal? To betray is to renege on a promise made to a friend or ally, to act in complete contradiction to previous solemn commitments. Objectively speaking, Donald Trump did not betray anyone; on the contrary, he has shown disarming loyalty. First, to what matters most to him: his electorate, which lifted him to the top of the state once and then again, much to the dismay of the American political, intellectual, and media establishment. Then, to those who matter least to him: the natural and traditional allies of the United States since World War II, and even before that. Even more so to the few countries that share his vision of the world and international relations—countries often labeled as illiberal, populist, or even fascist, as if true fascism were at Europe’s doorstep, as if populism—in the rigorous sense of Rousseau’s “general will”—were an abomination, the ultimate affront to enlightened elites.

Yet as De Tocqueville, one of the greatest authorities on American democracy, observed with regret, in a society of equal citizens, the majority is always right. I would add : even when it is wrong. This applies to Americans as well as to all other peoples still fortunate enough to elect their own leaders. No, the true existential threat looming over Europe does not come from so-called populist regimes, including Russia. This threat is endogenous, stemming from the very core of European nations, described in Macronist lexicon by the concepts of separatism and decivilization.

In a historic speech recently delivered in Munich—one that provoked an outcry from some Europeans—J.D. Vance clearly stated: “The threat that worries me most regarding Europe is not Russia, nor China, nor any other external actor. What worries me is the threat from within. Europe’s retreat from some of its most fundamental values.”

The official European interpreters only saw J.D. Vance’s speech as an allusive provocation with respect to “freedom of expression,” whereas his observations were much deeper, striking at the very heart of the multidimensional crisis affecting representative European democracies.

The Consistency and Coherence of Donald Trump

Whether on the Russo-Atlantist war fought by proxy through the Ukrainians, on NATO’s structural reform, on his America-centered vision of economic exchanges, on his aversion to multilateralism and its institutions, on his disdain for international law, on his hostility to globalization, or more generally, on his hatred for wokeism, his repulsion for gender theories, his strong opposition to crime-fueling immigration, his climate skepticism… Donald Trump has, in fact, never betrayed anything. Not his principles, nor his friends, nor his enemies.

Trump proclaimed it Urbi et Orbi during his first term, throughout his time in political exile, and during his latest election campaign, without a hint of restraint or semantic precaution. The only credo that fits him like a glove—and one he shares with Putin—is the motto of Tiberius: Oderint dum metuant (“Let them hate me, as long as they fear me”). Rather than blaming him out of circumstantial bias and condescension, we should even thank him for having freed Europeans from their voluntary servitude, as La Boétie would say.

What was once a secure and freely consensual alliance during the Cold War—an era of “impossible peace and improbable war,” in the beautiful phrase of Raymond Aron—transatlantic relationships have gradually mutated into a feudal subservience toward the Empire. This is understandable for Germany and, for other historical reasons, for England. But not for France, the homeland of General de Gaulle—some even believed they saw de Gaulle’s resurrection, not in Macron, but in Zelensky!

The Grand Return of Politics

For once, Hegel’s master-slave dialectic seems to have been turned on its head: no matter how vital the slave is to his existence and to what Hegel calls “self-consciousness,” it is now the master who no longer wants the slave. In his final conclusions, the author of Phenomenology of Spirit asserts that without violence, the historicity of human existence would be inconceivable; that an Edenic and “perpetual peace” (Kant) would be entirely contradictory to the very nature of this historicity. In other words, that brutal or symbolic violence is inherent to human nature, just as conflict is intrinsic to international relations.

Without having intellectually studied German philosophers or attended Harvard, and despite his “transgressive” nature, “brutality”, Trump operates with a certain strategy, logic and rationality. Instinctively, he has grasped this anthropological and phenomenological dimension of violence. He has probably never heard of René Girard—who, ironically, is more famous in the United States than in France—but who saw in Derridean deconstructionism, the ancestor of wokeism, as a “plague” afflicting universities. Nor has Trump heard of Max Weber, nor the controversial Carl Schmitt, the latter being the hidden inspiration behind Kissinger and Brzezinski. However, as Trump transforms into a formidable political beast, he instinctively embodies what Schmitt theorized and what Julien Freund deeply developed: the friend/enemy distinction as the fundamental, substantial, and irreducible criterion of politics.

The most remarkable aspect of this “great upheaval of the world,” which remains astonishing and difficult to precisely define or measure in terms of real impact, is, as Marcel Gauchet insightfully pointed out in a video interview with Vincent Roux for Le Figaro, the “return of politics.” More specifically, it is the restoration of politics to its fullness, its essence—to use Freund’s exact term. Even more remarkable is the major political and geopolitical paradigm shift we are experiencing, which, in my view, is both crucial and beneficial. This shift is not the work of a Napoleonic or Churchillian genius but rather of a man whom some dismissively call a “real estate developer.” It was Reagan, the “small-time movie actor,” who defeated the mighty Soviet empire, and Carter, the “peanut farmer,” who was the architect of the Camp David Accords! It is very often the case that history has been shaped by so-called ordinary men or meaningless events!

Donald Trump, the heir without an inheritance of Brzezinski!

Having been brought to power twice, Donald Trump is not an ordinary man. Yet he is neither a philosopher nor a politician in the usual sense of the term. Nor is he a pacifist—let alone a warmonger. Apart from the chaotic and reckless militarism of George W. Bush—who, incidentally, publicly supported Kamala Harris against Trump, thus mutating from a neo-conservative to an arch-progressive—this Clausewitzian inclination- warmongering- has generally been more characteristic of Democrats than Republicans. Coming from a Calvinist family, Trump sees his economic success as a sign of divine election and grace, much as Max Weber saw in the Protestant ethic. He believes, mutatis mutandis, that he is invested with an eschatological mission—first and foremost for the benefit of Americans, and only secondarily for humanity as a whole. This absolute primacy of American interests—America First—is not a Trumpian vice but an American virtue, a deeply rooted cultural atavism. In The Grand Chessboard and The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, Brzezinski always added the subtitle America and the Rest of the World! It would be thus more appropriate to criticize Europeans for failing to defend their own interests than to blame Americans for fiercely defending theirs. For better or worse, with the rise of the Global South, the American “hyperpower” is becoming less and less indispensable, and the rest of the world is on its way to becoming the new center of global affairs.

Trumpism: A Profound and Enduring Trend

By going it alone, is Trump immediately jeopardizing the strategic security of the “rest of the world”?  And what is Europe becoming? Whether one takes an alarmist or optimistic view, Europe—which de Gaulle envisioned stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals”—will now have to rely solely on itself. Better late than never! Putin’s Russia, which at one point even considered joining NATO in June 2000, could have been part of a “European Confederation”—an idea proposed by General de Gaulle in his 1959 speech in Strasbourg and later revived by François Mitterrand at the Prague Summit on June 13-14, 1991 when he spoke of a Europe from Brest to Vladivostok. In the same year and month, James Baker suggested in Berlin a “Euro-Atlantic community stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok”!

To continue playing in the league of major powers, Europe must first equip itself
with all the levers of power, first and foremost moral rearmament, which is also crucial for military rearmament. It is vital to reconnect with Europe’s civilizational past and its cultural identity. At the time of the drafting of the European constitution, we still remember the byzantine debate it provoked and President Chirac’s refusal to see “Christian roots” mentioned in it.

To reclaim its place in history—a history that Fukuyama prematurely declared to be at its “end” with his self-fulfilling prophecy and vaguely messianic, neo-Hegelian reasoning—the Old Continent needs a single, realistic, and coherent strategy. It needs a unified leadership, a single phone number—just as Kissinger once joked. Its fundamental problem, its original sin, is that Europe has multiple lines—both literally and figuratively. Paradoxically, this is not what Trump is now accusing Europe of; for Trump, “the European Union was designed to ‘screw’ the United States”. If Trump knew the indissoluble links that the founding fathers, Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, had with his country, he would never have said such a thing!

This is Europe’s Achilles heel in these times of strong diplomatic turbulence and geopolitical and even geographical reconfiguration that are decisive and perilous for all. Quieta non movere (Don’t touch what is quiet) said the Romans. War rhetoric and affective, impulsive and versatile diplomacy lead to nothing, except chimeras of glory. The categorical imperative, the true merit, the great mission for which Europe should work, is the perpetual peace that Kant, the sun of the Enlightenment, and “citizen” of Kaliningrad!, sketched out.

If, as Hubert Védrine rightly thinks, Trump is “a phenomenon destined to last,” it would be pointless to believe that one only needs to bear with him for the next four years in making the least damage possible, the time it takes for America to regain its historical memory and for the Europeans to plunge back into their lethargy. A strong socio-political trend, Trumpism will prove to be a long ordeal, especially for the Europeans… while waiting for the titanic battle against the systemic rival, China. So we might as well consider it as an opportunity for Europe rather than a curse.

Mezri Haddad, Doctor of Moral and Political Philosophy from Paris IV-Sorbonne, former Ambassador to UNESCO and Director of the International Centre for Geopolitics and Analytical Foresight (CIGPA). His latest essay on the Russian-Ukrainian war is Du conflit de civilisation à la guerre de substitution, with a preface by Hubert Védrine, published by JCG, 2022

By Mezri Haddad, philosopher, former senior diplomat at The United Nations/UNESCO. France, Paris.

Translation by Hall Gardner