With the election of Donald Trump, the relationship between the United States and the European Union will undoubtedly change drastically. This, of course, will have consequences for the transatlantic relations that Barack Obama helped to build during his presidency. Everything from trade relations to soft diplomacy measures between the two entities will be affected by this historic moment. The global markets have become more volatile; many Europeans are at a loss of what to think about the United States, while Donald Trump’s connections to Russia could usher in a new wave of shifts in global power. This election will have enormous consequences not only for the United States, but for the rest of the world. The EU’s benefits of maintaining relations with the United States may decrease, and Donald Trump’s election has already been seen by many as a repeat of what happened in Germany in 1933. At that time, an out of touch elite lost power when it couldn’t listen and respond to the needs of the masses. Then came a savior to bring the country out of darkness. Only what ended up happening under the rule of Hitler wasn’t what the public expected. The painful memories of World War II that still dictate much of Europe’s political environment have rendered the progressive political processes that have occurred ever since the EU was established.
The referendum movement in the UK and the election of Trump have proven that the powerful bureaucrats of these countries are extremely out of touch with the people they govern. The inaccuracy of the media, the polls, and the political elite has proven that the agendas of those in power, who own these institutions, aren’t as influential and representative as they once were. This election reflected the death rattle that is the oldest citizens voting for the most reactionary policies, as the millennials consistently voted with progressive social policies that reflect the status quo in places like Germany. With both the UK and the United States moving backwards politically, how will Europe maintain their relationship with these countries? What does this mean for the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) that was adopted in 1995? The measures that the US and Europe took over seventy years ago, measures that would ensure that no belligerent leader could start wars and threaten global safety, have ended with this election. Donald Trump will surely usher in new parameters for European engagement, and this may have devastating consequences for the United Nations, the OECD, the International Monetary Fund, and countless other organizations that enlist the help of the United States and the EU to ensure world peace.
It is up to the European Union to decide how it will react to the Donald Trump presidency. Whether this means increasing or decreasing transatlantic ties can’t immediately be predicted. This event occurred only days ago, and the world is still reeling. At the very least, the EU must learn from the mistakes of the UK and the United States. They have their own economic, social, and immigration problems to deal with, and clearly the United States has shown that radicalism and reactionary thinking is not the answer. The continent’s disenchantment with the European Union, the slow economic growth, and the immigrant crisis mirror the same crises happening in the United States. The transatlantic electorate has been marginalized, jobless, and fed up for some time now, and these twin crises in the United States and the EU necessitate collaboration to effectively and realistically address the concerns of their respective populaces. This must be a multifaceted effort enlisting the help of international organizations, the global media, and extensive data to look at the realities of the common citizen in the West.
If the EU chooses to learn from the mistakes of the United States, the media, just to use as an example, is an enormous resource for data and historical information. The EU can investigate where the American media went wrong in predicting the 2016 election and utilize this intelligence to better understand the shortcomings of their own political systems. The EU can work to answer many of the questions that the American government failed to answer in time. When will job growth accelerate? When will the economy start growing at a healthy rate again? What can be done to most effectively care for the immigrants fleeing to our borders? These are the just a few of the questions that plagued those who voted for Trump. The government could have preemptively utilized media to increase transparency of public services and legislation, but unfortunately the profit driven media elite in the United States failed to pay attention to those who needed these public services the most. This seems to be akin to what occurred leading up to the Brexit election, and who’s to say whether these mechanisms will be at play during the coming elections throughout Europe?
The best course of action for the EU right now is to ensure that the mechanisms that rendered the election of Trump in America don’t continue on European soil. Both the United States and the UK woke up the morning after these historical events wondering, “how did it come to this?” The EU must make sure it doesn’t meet the same flummoxed and terrified fate. There are sure to be changes in the transatlantic relationship during the next four years, and the extent to which Europe is adversely affected by Donald Trump’s election is in the hands of those in power in the EU. One thing is for sure: it is time for the EU to listen to its people. Where the United States and the UK failed, Europe still has a chance to succeed in continuing progress. The transatlantic relationship depends on it.
I thought this posed a really interesting set of questions. The challenges identified are serious–in essence, Jill is asking how Europe can both prevent the consequences of the movement against integration and globalization, and also correct its causes. She highlights the persistent failure of polling data to gauge public opinion accurately, and I think that is an excellent example of the failure of the overall effort to understand what people want. The polling data generated through phone and internet polls is inherently biased by an opt-in selection effect, and pollsters, aside from hoping that opt-in decisions are randomly distributed within the population, also manipulate the data to make it as representative of who they think will vote as possible. And therein lies the problem–who will vote? Are people more aggravated than ever before? Will a different demographic vote, and what will that mean for the representativeness of the decisions generated?
“One thing is for sure: it is time for the EU to listen to its people.”
This quote stuck with me from your article. What happens if the people demand more populism (as increasing national trends reveal)? In case of Donald Trump, the people were heard – despite elite consensus, media recommendations, historical trajectories, and warnings from all sides of the political establishment. How do we keep Europe from progressing toward a similar path, driven from the bottom up?
Jill,
It’s yet to be determined how much of an impact Trump’s election will have for US-European relations. Trump has made some crass remarks about European countries, but this hasn’t been supported by anti-Europe policy positions (he has softened his NATO comments many times).
I wonder if relations might be worsened not based on Trump’s actions but European leaders being reluctant to engage and support him based on comments he’s made about Muslims and women. European leaders may have to sacrifice being critiqued by their populations to engage with Trump and sustain strong US-Euro relations.
Dear Jill,
I am sorry to say, but I fully disagree with your analysis. How can you compare Trump with Hitler? How can you say that Brexit and the result of the US elections were mistakes. You may like it or not, but this was democracy alive. The UK and the US do not move backwards, they more forward, just in a different direction. Do not forget that old people have children and grandchildren. So do not expect that they only vote for themselves. The global safety will not end with Trump. He may reshape the structure. But that is speculation. And really, governments should not use media to manipulate voters. And if I got it right media was against Trump, even in Europe, but he won. Your article is written from an establishment’s point of view. Of course people in DC woke up and wondered “how did it come to this”, but many woke up and were happy. So be optimistic, change will come but not the negative change you expect today.
In response to the comments on the comparison of President-elect Trump to Hitler, President-elect Trump is not a fascist. However, the President-elect ran a successful political campaign of fear and hate. While he has significantly reduced his rhetoric in the last month, the statements made by and the electoral victory of President-elect Trump have given agency to real fascism in America, not in the sense used by either the fringe-left nor the fringe-right, but the dictionary definition of the word – the promotion of one race over all others. Once tucked in a distant corner of the World-Wide-Web, hate groups now openly hold conventions and marches in the United States. More concerning, the American media now describes hate groups of this nature on normalizing terms – “white nationalism” instead of the Ku Klux Klan, the “alt-right” instead of the Neo-Nazis, etc. The overwhelming majority of the historiography on Nazi Germany states that the normalization or acceptance of hate speech and hate groups paved the way for the Holocaust and WWII. Yet, while strong historical parallels exist between 1930s Germany and the current, potential trajectory of the United States, the comparison of Trump to Hitler is not as accurate as Trump to Mussolini. In August, The Atlantic published this piece:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/american-authoritarianism-under-donald-trump/495263/
I find I look forward to the continued discussion on this topic and responses to the article.
Dear Jill,
You have touched on several various topics and I don’t think that we will really know the full impact of a Trump presidency until he takes office and we can reflect on his first 100 days. When you compare Trump and his rise to power by stating : “The EU’s benefits of maintaining relations with the United States may decrease, and Donald Trump’s election has already been seen by many as a repeat of what happened in Germany in 1933.” Are you suggesting that the US socio-economic status was much like the Weimar Republic prior to World War II? Trump certainly ran on fear and threats, but I think is rise to power has more to do with Americans being sick and tired of traditional politicians in Washington and not necessarily a weak government nor economy. Interesting perspective!
Cheers,
Evan
Hey Jill,
thanks for the interesting read. I agree with most of your underlying points, especially the danger populist platforms as used by Trump and the Brexiteers present us with( @ Manuel Schöb: I think it is not so much a question of whether one likes the outcome of the Brexit referendum and the US elections, respectively – I don’t, for a number of reasons – but rather the seeming normalization of xenophobic, inward-looking ideas that run counter to our constitution as well as to the US constitution and thus some fundamental principles of liberal democracies). Yet I think it is tricky to refer to the EU as a bloc when attempting to formulating an answer to Trump and the continent’s own populist threat. After all, isn’t the perception of the EU’s overbearing powers partly responsible for the EU skepticism that is spreading across Europe? That is by no means to say that we should once more resort to national (much less nationalist) solutions. However, we should remind ourselves that while the EU is a supranational organization, some policies are still directed by nation states. Unfortunately, my thoughts don’t offer a clear-cut answer but rather depict the quandary the EU (Europe) finds itself in.