[ad_1]
President Massimo D’Alema, USA came to the vote divided, in a very tense social climate, after an electoral campaign full of violence and devoid of programs. Now Trump screams fraud and calls for the intervention of the Supreme Court. Is the “transition” to the White House something never seen before?
It is the manifestation of a dramatic crisis. A system in which those who get 4 million more votes may not be president is a holdover from a bygone era, not easily understood today. However, it must be said that in the United States and throughout the Western world our societies are increasingly torn apart. Not only income inequalities have deepened: there is a deep cultural divide between those who possess the cognitive tools to face the unknowns of contemporary times and those who do not. The rupture between the center and the peripheries, between above and below, is now total. The uncertainty of the outlook is reflected in the perception of the loss of the West’s hegemonic role. Populism is also an expression of all this. It is inevitable that the American model will falter: it is based on alternation within a system of shared rules, on substantial fair play.
A scheme that Trump has scrapped. If Biden’s victory is confirmed, will it be the end of “Trumpism”?
Trump was not a temporary parenthesis. It represents an element of crisis with respect to the American democratic tradition: he said before the vote that he would not accept the verdict, and that is not normal. But it is a phenomenon destined to remain: nationalist, ethnocentric populism, based on the role of the white race, runs through the Western world. On the other hand, united in a single party is the “democratic coalition” that must become aware of the need for profound changes because neoliberalism no longer works. A new season will begin with the Democrats in office. But the schedule is demanding: to consider that a crazy parenthesis has ended and you can return to the usual routine would be a serious mistake.
Republicans, many of whom are happy with Trump’s defeat, have evaporated in these four years around a “foreign body.” While the Democrats have relied on secondhand security, the common sense of a moderate. How is the American political landscape changing?
The Democrats have chosen a personality capable of uniting the progressive camp. But it was not an electoral campaign in the name of common sense against recklessness. There was a radical and dramatic systemic shock. True, little has been said about the programs, but the cause of contention, as never before in American history, has been over the principles of freedom and democracy, as Biden has repeatedly said. There is a video of the Democrats, which went viral, comparing Trump to Hitler. It certainly doesn’t seem like a moderate message to me.
In the end, who will have defeated Trump: Biden or the coronavirus?
I believe that without the coronavirus Trump would not have lost. The pandemic has radicalized the conflict: primacy of life over primacy of the economy, solidarity with the most fragile against the superimism of those who survive. Putting the values of science, life and health at the center of the debate, mobilized the Democratic people who perhaps were not attracted by the personality of the candidate.
Many analysts argue that without the umbrella world of Trumpo and European sovereignty will be reduced. You share?
In Italy, sovereignty suffered a setback even before this vote. In France, Germany, Spain it never happened. Of course, there is Orban’s Hungary. But in the heart of old Europe there is what I have called the “democratic coalition” that, finally, with Biden, will have an interlocutor across the Atlantic. This is a very important fact. And now a reflection will open in the European right that perhaps makes it clear that populist leaderships have limits in terms of government credibility.
What kind of limits?
Whoever governs a country must be considered an acceptable interlocutor by the other leaders of the international community. Those who choose not to charge a very high price. A price that would be almost unsustainable for Italy. Perhaps, after the American vote, the extreme positions will be reduced. And the right will settle on anti-liberal Trumpist memorandum positions.
Whoever wins the White House will face a demanding agenda, he said earlier. Where to start?
The great problem today, in America as in Europe, are the social and cultural revolts against globalization, which were expressed through Trumpism but which still have a solid base. At the origin there are real problems: economic crisis and sense of loss. People no longer feel in control of their own destiny. I believe that the first point of a serious government agenda would be the reform of capitalism. To reproduce on a global scale what happened in post-war Europe: to make capitalist development compatible with democracy, with a certain degree of equality, with the protection of health and the environment.
Speaking of health and the environment, isn’t it surprising, and a little scary, how Obama’s progress has been “chewed up” in just four years? Public health, rights, climate change, fight against racism… Can’t you see a big step back?
Obama was a courageous president with a clear vision of the future, although he did not always achieve the results he set out to do. It is his world that was decisive for the victory of Biden, who will be the most voted president in the history of the United States. That America has not been “chewed up”: there has been a progressive awakening, it is in that avalanche of votes. Now it will be a matter of structuring it on a political agenda. Pope Francis’ latest encyclical, coldly received in the West, is also an important reading as an inspiration for a government program.
How will geopolitical balances change? Many believe that relations with China and Russia will not change substantially. Do you think, instead, that Biden will continue the “Abrahamic pact” with Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain?
I find the current American position on foreign policy to be largely wrong. But I doubt there will be any significant changes in the short term. In the Middle East there is a policy of consolidating the coalition with Israel and with the Gulf autocracies in a substantially anti-Islamic key. The American program is one of war, not peace, in fact, it is sealed with the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The idea is to build a pro-Western side with the less democratic governments in the region to oppose Iran and Turkey. The United States says: we withdraw, but we build a perimeter of force welding Israel with the most conservative area of the Arab world. It doesn’t seem like a prospect of peace to me.
What strategic alternatives do you see? Trump has reduced the theory of the “world gendarme” of the United States and criticizes NATO, after asking in vain for contributions from other states. While Europe does not have a common army.
The relative weight of the West in the world has been reduced. China is now a power equal to the US The sum of nuclear weapons in the Shanghai Pact exceeds that of NATO. And the geopolitical situation sees the West in conflict with the rest of the world: Iran, Russia, China, Sunni and Shiite Islam. I don’t have the impression that it is a bright prospect. Rather, it is necessary to create the conditions for a new peaceful coexistence by going beyond the current framework. The advantage is that this problem can now be addressed with leaders who may disagree with each other, but who at least speak the same language.
Summing up the American agenda for the next presidential term: reform capitalism to mitigate inequalities in domestic politics, lay the foundations for peaceful coexistence between the West and the rest of the world in foreign policy. Will Biden be up to the task?
He is a balanced person. He may not have been a brilliant candidate, but I am convinced that he will be a good president. He is a politician. Finally, the scalpel is once again in the hands of a surgeon and not a butcher. The crazy idea that politicians should be banned to save democracy is put aside. As Max Weber argues: Politics is a specialized branch of the intellectual professions. The problem is choosing the right politicians.
[ad_2]
