Biden and Trump: so strong, so vulnerable

Biden and Trump. A replay of the 2020 election that doesn’t sit well with American voters and worries the rest of the world. How is it possible that in a country that everyone looks up to and that claims to be an example for the entire world, there is competition between a visibly elderly and sometimes confused outgoing president and a former president who risks one or more criminal convictions for doubting the same democratic institutions?

To answer this question and draw conclusions about the health of the American superpower, we first need to recognize the scale of changes brought about in recent years, first by Donald Trump and then by Joe Biden. In doing so, we will find that, compared with the turning point that began after forty years of significant weakening caused by post-industrial policies, the disagreements that are tearing apart American society today are in some ways secondary. However, they represent a serious cause for concern, as a new geopolitical challenge emerges and requires clarity of purpose and greater ability to compete globally.

Observing the political and cultural battles in America today would make it seem that the country is not only deeply divided, but is even in danger of a violent imbalance between the two souls of society: the urban, cosmopolitan, and progressive centers, as opposed to the more rural, conservative, and self-reliant areas. There is no denying the existence of a gap between the two different views of society and the perceptions of changes in recent decades. Simply put, the idea of an increasingly interconnected world with a mixing of cultures and even new forms of personal identity seems far removed from a community still tied to a traditional, sometimes religious, vision of defending against the threats of the modern world.

The question is whether this is an intractable conflict, and whether this division truly represents a fundamental characteristic of the country today. There is reason to hope this is not the case, meaning there is the possibility of general progress in American society that might soften the differences and make cultural conflicts less destructive.

To understand why, let’s go back to 2016, when the recent unrest began, to the times of Brexit in the United Kingdom and the election of Donald Trump in the United States.

The main thing to remember is that the political uprising of that moment, followed by the rise of other similar movements in various Western countries, did not occur within the same camp. In the United States, for example, the “socialist” Bernie Sanders managed to secure 43% of the vote in the Democratic primary, and he also opposed major trade agreements and called for protecting and strengthening the welfare state.

The cultural differences between the two sides are obvious, but it is the similarities that should make us think about the needs of that part of the population that feels left behind by the economic changes of globalization and no longer has faith in political institutions.

This was a sign of a potential realignment of political geography, in which divisions were based more on the contrast between “outsiders” and the elite than on the contrast between right and left. This trend was confirmed by vote flow analysis, which showed that 8 to 9 million Americans who voted for Barack Obama subsequently supported Trump, indicating that the promise of changing the institutions could carry more weight than ideological and cultural identification.

Today, 7 years later, the restructuring is only partial: the Republican Party is divided between the Trumpian faction and more traditional Republicans who are ready to turn the page also out of fear of another defeat in 2024. Trump is still challenging the establishment on some issues, such as promising to end the war in Ukraine. But now he needs to win to avoid prison, and in Washington they are thinking about how to neutralize the threat that he, as it turns out, poses to institutions.

However, on the Democratic side, greater synthesis was achieved between more progressive and moderate positions, especially on economic issues. Joe Biden has embraced deep change in the American economy, pushing for strong public investment and increased social spending, while on cultural issues, such as anti-racism and LGBT rights, he tries to avoid extreme positions. The goal is to achieve tangible improvements and maintain dialogue with the so-called “white working class,” given that a general distrust of the establishment can bring significant votes to secondary candidates. The greatest influence could be asserted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who decided to run as an anti-establishment independent candidate, which is a risk for both parties.

The area where Biden is most convinced of the need to continue is the turning point in the country’s economic policy. He will never admit it, but the impetus for making a number of adjustments to the liberal and market model of globalization came precisely from his predecessor; and it was Trump who ushered in the season of major government interventions and, above all, of rethinking international trade agreements – albeit sometimes using crude methods.

The Biden administration now supports a paradigm shift, a new industrial policy aimed at revitalizing manufacturing in key sectors. And he says rebuilding the middle class is also key to staying strong internationally.

This approach has little appeal to those who adhere to free market models and oppose a greater role for the state, but a new course has now been set, supported by a significant agreement among government agencies to substantially increase national capabilities in the technology sectors that will determine whether competing with China is possible.

The new “post-global” approach of the USA confirms that the country has managed to cope with the populist task of the foreign policy course correction, moving away from conflicts in the wider Middle East and shifting attention to Asia (while in Ukraine the tension between an interventionist position and a “realist” position advocating diplomacy will emerge ever more).

After the first steps taken during Barack Obama’s mandate, the two protagonists of this turning point were Donald Trump and Joe Biden. There is no shortage of characters who could step into their shoes, but more pragmatic considerations continue to prevail on both sides: the more divisive the primaries are, the more each party risks suffering heading into November 2024.

Thus, America may relive the clash of 2020, this time with the threat of Trump to the nth degree and the unknown of a very weak Biden in the eyes of voters. At the very least, we can recognize that, despite their age, both contributed to the renewal of the country, taking important steps forward in response to the populist shock and new strategic challenges.