The last straw?

I will continue the tradition of writing the last article of the year to take stock of these twelve months and point out what, in my opinion, has been radically new on the international political scene. I have little doubt: the upheaval of the first year of Trump's second presidency. Moreover, being in San Francisco during the Christmas period, and being able to talk with friends, colleagues, and family, helps me focus on the topic.

Allow me, however, to devote a paragraph to nostalgia. I am writing this article while gazing out the window of my lodgings at the bell tower of a large public university: the University of California, Berkeley. It's the view that, from August 1972, accompanied me for nine years through another window, the one in my office. bell tower He has been a constant and calm observer of the scientific, technological, and social revolutions that have emerged from his surroundings over the last century, from the immediate vicinity of the university to the wider San Francisco Bay Area, including its counterpart across the water, the private Stanford University. It has been argued that the productivity advantage of the US economy over Europe is largely due to the large digital companies that have defined the powerful Silicon Valley ecosystem, fostered by the pre-existence of the two universities. Neither of these companies existed in August 1972. For me, this fact, and the similar case of China, proves that in fifty years a country can take off to the forefront of scientific and technological creativity. Europe should take note.

In San Francisco, there is such an obsession with entrepreneurship and such a propensity for innovative experiments that a variety of anecdotes have emerged. For example, I'm told that you have to be careful with Uber drivers because if you talk to women, they'll try to involve you in their start-upAnother example: last Sunday, city traffic was brought to a standstill, thankfully without casualties, because a power outage (twenty-five years ago there were more, and a Catalan company, AIA, came to help manage the grid) had an unexpected consequence: the driverless vehicles were left stranded. And since there are so many of them, imagine the effect. It will be an opportunity to learn and improve.

But let's turn to the Trump presidency. Among the opinions I'm receiving, some don't agree with mine, at least not yet.

Let's start with my belief—partially at odds with the opinions I've found here—that economic factors won't be what stops the momentum of Trumpism. Several things confirm this for me. The enrichment of his family isn't generating the scandal one would expect in Europe. And while the rejection of the racism implicit in the new immigration policy is very strong among the traditionally socially conscious population, the perception of immigration as a problem is so widespread that this issue works in Trump's favor. However, Trump is currently facing a serious economic challenge: the rising cost of living is generating widespread dissatisfaction. And, although it's not clear that inflation will be enough to stop Trumpism, I'm told that if anything does, it will be inflation. If that happens, I'll happily be wrong. But my conviction is that if the danger is significant, and if, moreover, the inflation is a product of Trump's policies—that is, the tariffs or the imposition of a low interest rate policy—then the president will simply backtrack, as he did in April 2024 when Wall Street was reeling. His doctrinal principles are weak, if not nonexistent.

The idea that has been conveyed to me, and with which I agree, is the one I just expressed: President Trump is neither Democrat nor Republican. In the words of my interlocutor, he only cares about his legacy. This is a common trait in politics, and it is benign in democratic regimes but dangerous in authoritarian ones. The mystery is: what legacy does he aspire to? A grand ballroom in the White House is not substantial enough. It seems to me that he will measure his success in tangible and classic terms, but on a grander scale. Let's look at the new Monroe Doctrine. Now the focus is on Venezuela. Will it be Cuba next? Half-jokingly, we said: perhaps Greenland? The next day the news was that Trump was putting the governor of Louisiana—bought during Napoleon's reign—in charge of acquiring Greenland. This is serious, and I think it's a lost cause. I hope this is the final straw that makes a weak Europe react.