(November 7, 2024 – FEPS, Brussels)
Speakers of Panel 1:
- Brian Glynn, Managing Director, Americas, European External Action Service
- Colin Woodard, Director, Nationhood Lab, Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, Salve Regina University and GMF Fellow 2001, Journalism Program (online)
- Jessica Taylor, US Senate and Governors Editor, The Cook Political Report (online)
Speakers of Panel 2:
- Ann Linde, FEPS Special Advisor on Foreign Policy & former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden
- Nacho Sánchez Amor, S&D MEP and AFET Coordinator
- Augusto López-Claros, Executive Director and Chair of the Global Governance Forum
- Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations & Professor of International Affairs, Georgetown University, Walsh School of Foreign Service and Department of Government (online)
Moderator:
- Laszlo Andor, secretary general, FEPS
- Reah Bravo, Speechwriter, Author, and former PBS Political News Producer (Panel 1)
- Ian Lesser, Distinguished Fellow and Advisor to the President, GMF (Panel 2)
The hybrid event organised by FEPS and the German Marshall Fund aimed to give a quick overview about possible implications of the results of the US presidential election, leading to a second presidential term of Donald J. Trump. The aim was to offer a timely opportunity to delve into the evolving dynamics of US domestic politics, and their ripple effects on the transatlantic relationship. With leaders and experts from both sides of the Atlantic, the goal was to explore how the election results will shape policies and strategies, influencing not only US-EU relations but also the global geopolitical landscape.
Opening remarks were made by László Andor, representing FEPS. He emphasised the extraordinary nature of these presidential elections. He added that usually there is a wide interest around them, but this time the stakes were considered very high, not only for Americans. He also mentioned that it is very rare that a former president can return, as it happened only once before. Approaching the subject of the event, he gave a short overview of various past presidents’ attitude towards Europe and multilateralism. He added that now only 20% of the European spectators are happy with the results, and there were only four EU member states, where the majority of people have supported Trump.Then he briefly introduced the two panels and the participants.
The first panel was titled “A Polarized Democracy and the Future of US Politics”, the second went under the title “Transatlantic Tides: US Election Results and Their Impact on EU-US Relations and the Global Order”.
Panel 1 started with the introductory remarks of Reah Bravo, who expressed unhappiness over the results, recalling times when the Republican Party was represented by John McCain or Mitt Romney, then introduced the members of the panel. Colin Woodard emphasised the important role of the economy in the elections, while Brian Glynn noted some significant differences between Europe and America. As he put it, a European version of an American trend is expected, while earlier an American version of European trends was common. He also identified some typical European interpretation mistakes, e.g. related to latinos, whom, according to him, most Europeans still see as “migrants”, while reality is far over that.
Jessica Taylor reaffirmed this when speculating about the next Trump term. She added that the predictable Republican majority in the Senate will bring options, and the attention will be mostly on economic issues, e.g. focusing on tax cuts, but probably will not go after health care, trying to repeal ObamaCare. Additionally, isolationism is probable in the future, just as the rise of some ideological issues, like gay marriage and abortion. The panel has agreed that Kamala Harris should have put the economy forward, and that with time, the Democratic Party will adapt, and they will learn from these mistakes for the future elections.
During the Q&A section, members of the panel addressed the question of the drop in voter turnout, especially compared to the 2020 elections. The conclusion was that Trump’s policies are important to the middle class: the winning political message was generally “fixing what Harris has done wrong” (trying to put some of the responsibility on the vice president of Joe Biden), adding that voters do not make their decisions on a rational evaluation of the situation, but it is rather an emotional decision, which may be rationalised later. Reacting to another question, panel members seemed to agree on that, even if the European extreme right wing is happy with the results, and there are ideological conclusions, the results are really dominantly about the economy.
Panel 2 started with Ann Linde summarising her ideas related to the future US-European connections, offering a bit more political attitude. Her views were somewhat intensified by the intervention of Nacho Sánchez Amor, who added that it is hard to predict the new presidency, because while there are hundreds of papers about it, it is really about “the guy”, and he is unpredictable. So the problem is not the policies, the problem is the President elected. He added that it is time to start thinking about having lost an important ally, and drew attention to the fact that Trump never mentions the GOP, only MAGA, practically replacing the party with his own movement.
Charles Kupchan added that the US has just elected someone who is fundamentally unfit for the office, and this new era requires preparation. On the part of the US, we will not see any more long-term strategic commitments, but more of an isolationism, which will be different than the XIX. century one. It will be more of a transactionalism, where the US will act rather like a real estate agent, and allies will try to adapt to Trump’s requirements.
The moderator set a question about the use of force. The panellists agreed that Trump will be more pragmatic here, mentioning that Biden was wrong with bringing ideology into foreign policy. Trump will not do the same, he will bring certain realism into it. Democrats have been heavily criticised for not having foreign policy strategy at all. Ian Lesser added that the global economy does not look good, and Trump’s possible strategies may have different outcomes. One scenario is that reintroducing tariffs will fuel inflation, which will have a bad effect on US economic growth or on USD. So far these effects did not really appear in the US because of balancing forces, like strong rule of law – but this is uncertain now. Income inequality is not only a political, but also a social problem that needs to be addressed, not only in the US but also in the EU.
Among the questions of the audience, there was a concern about other autocrats being encouraged by Trump. Seemingly, the European ultra-right is happy with the results, as that may reinforce anti-abortion and other issues. Panellists drew the attention to Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation – which, according to some, is worthy to be read and to be scared of. The panellists think that the European effects are already present, see the appearance of the Patriots group in the European Parliament. Still, a good thing may come out of this situation: the history of the EU is a chain of crises, which constantly reinforce the EU. According to the panellists, what happens in the USA, may be a distraction that the EU should not be affected by.
On the websites of the organisers:
https://www.gmfus.org/event/us-election-implications-us-eu-and-global-politics
https://feps-europe.eu/event/state-of-the-unions-2024/