Pol Morillas: "The Americans have understood that Trump is harmful to their interests"

BarcelonaThe Democrats have dubbed their resounding victory in the United States midterm elections as bluenami. That is to say, a blue tsunami. It is an expression that makes Pol Morillas, director of CIDOB, smile before starting this interview on the ARA set. Morillas provides an urgent analysis of the meaning of the midterm verdict, which is, above all, a loud and major punishment for Donald Trump.

I ask him for a short, concise headline about the election night we have experienced.

— A referendum on Trump's mismanagement and his presidency, which highlights how these first two years of his term have been detrimental to the interests of the American citizenry.

Is this the beginning of the end of Trumpism?

— Regarding Trumpism as a unique ideological, mental, and discursive framework, according to which the state of American politics is mobilized, it undoubtedly is. There is a new wave that says the effects of this patriotic mental framework of Make America Great Again are counterproductive to the interests of the nation and its citizens. And, therefore, the Democrats see an opportunity to offer an alternative. And it is here that the debate opens as to what is the best strategy to offer a convincing alternative for 2028.

And what should this strategy be?

— The Democrats are still not clear about it. But they are drawing lessons. For example, from Mamdani's triumph in New York it became clear that social justice must be the first topic of the debate. And that personal economy, the pockets of Americans, must be a priority in various forms: access to housing, the shopping basket, and social care programs. Another example is that they have realized that the average American citizen had lost faith in the Democratic Party and had gone to the Republican one. They cannot afford that. And what begins now, from today until 2028, beyond defining the ideological debate, is also the debate to decide which Democratic figure has the best capacity to unite these sensibilities and appear more credible to the electorate.

Which Trump will we see from now on?

— What is certain is that [Trump] is now a lame duck. The blow of the midterm elections will leave him weakened for these two years he has left in his term. And here, interesting debates open up. The first is to what extent the Republicans continue to follow Trumpism, because now they may have a more assertive voice against some of the president's decisions. And this brings us to the heart of the matter: what strategy should the Republican Party follow to maintain power in the White House in 2028? Remain faithful to Trumpism, even without Trump, maintaining the same tenets of the movement, or opt for a path that is equally very conservative, but more conventional, more detached from the figure of the president.

J.D. Vance, who many see as a good successor to maintain the line of Trumpism, has said that they lost the elections because of the war in Iran.

— Politics in the USA is always played out in domestic terms in the first instance. Therefore, the defeat can be caused, if you will, by the domestic consequences of the war, especially the economic ones, but under no circumstances by the war itself, by Trump's foreign policy. The ballot boxes tell us that the American population understands that Trump has his eyes too much on the outside and too little on the inside, and that the fact of being dragged into the war against Iran by Israel has had a negative impact on their lives, on the country's domestic issues.

An electoral year is coming in the European Union. Is there any European interpretation of the midterm results?

— Europe is a bit behind regarding the events that set the American political agenda. That is to say, the patriotic wave that Trump symbolizes and has symbolized, and which here in Europe has its followers with the German AfD, Le Pen, or Vox, is still brewing. And it is brewing to reach the polls of this decisive 2027 in very good shape. And beyond these European formations being able to draw conclusions from what has worked and what has not worked in this patriotic wave in the United States, the European elections will be played out based on national sensitivities and logics.

Elections are coming in Spain, and Pedro Sánchez has wanted to establish himself as a counterweight to Trump. Will he seek to gain profit from it in the campaign?

— I believe that the reading Sánchez can make, both from the United States and Brazil, is that it will be key to incentivize the participation of the Spanish population and mobilize the vote: both of his own voters and those who are not exactly his, but who consider the alternative to be worse. Then, obviously, there are the national logics we spoke about earlier: the assessment the population makes of Sánchez's management, the train accident, a possible pact between the Popular Party and Vox... but I believe one of the keys to November 29th will be to what extent Sánchez is capable of activating a greater mobilization of his potential voters in a project that is for the future of the country.

There is a growing, and probably absurd, debate that calls into question the effectiveness of democracy as a political system. What have the first two years of this second Trump term meant for democracy?

— It is curious how tonight's elections question, in some way, every action of erosion that Trump has carried out against democracy. Despite the attacks that the Republican president has perpetrated against the democratic system, the United States continues to be a country capable of going against a leader who wishes to be much more autocratic than what should be normal in a Western democracy. Therefore, there is a positive message of democratic resilience, which evidences that democracies, when expressed with high participation, are a system that responds to the state of public debate. And this is good news.