Alain de Benoist analyzes the results of the American presidential election. While he welcomes the victory of the people over the Establishment, he nonetheless cautions against excessive optimism regarding the potential positive consequences of Donald Trump’s victory for France and Europe, as well as the illusion of attempting to transplant “Trumpism” to Europe.
Breizh-info.com: What is your initial analysis of Donald Trump’s decisive victory?
Alain de Benoist: General de Gaulle, when people praised the American political system to him, replied, “In France, the Supreme Court is the people.” Donald Trump was the candidate of the working class, which is why he won. His victory is all the more significant because, beyond the vote of the electoral college (which isn’t truly democratic), he won the majority of the popular vote, with a substantial lead over his pitiful rival, something he hadn’t achieved in 2016 or 2020 (and something no Republican candidate had managed since 2004). Put differently, Trump’s victory is, above all, the people’s victory over the Establishment. In France, we would refer to this as “peripheral France.” Across the Atlantic, it’s more like continental America winning over maritime America.
Finally, and this has been less emphasized, it’s also a victory of concrete references over abstraction. Trump spoke of America — a very specific reality — while his opponent spoke of broad universal notions like “democracy,” the fight for “freedom,” and “civilization,” which, like all terms without a particular, singular content, are mere mantras devoid of meaning.
Breizh-info.com: In your opinion, how will the Trump presidency affect relations between the U.S. and Europe, especially on critical issues like Ukraine, European defense, and protectionism? Some believe Trump might encourage a form of strategic independence in Europe. Do you think a second term could accelerate a desire for greater autonomy in defense and foreign policy in Europe?
Alain de Benoist: Relations with Europe will change. Donald Trump is notoriously indifferent to the transatlantic link. He believes NATO costs Americans too much and yields them little. Will this shake up Europeans who have tended to imagine that “if there’s trouble, we can count on our American allies”? Sometimes you can count on that, but often, surely not. Trump wants to break away from the “democratic missionary” role to re-found America on the classic logic of great powers. He wants to end wars that lead nowhere. Regarding Ukraine, his initiatives are likely to displease Zelensky — not because Trump sympathizes with Putin but because he wants to end a war that hasn’t met its objectives and which Ukraine has already lost. But those expecting him to develop a policy that will make Russia “acceptable” again will be disappointed. Similarly, in the Middle East, he’s unlikely to support the armed confrontation with Iran that Netanyahu dreams of. Russia will remain an enemy to Americans, but the main rival is China, and it’s clear that Trump wants to focus on it.
Protectionism is another question. Trump has never concealed his intention to raise tariffs on goods exported to the United States. The Chinese fear their goods will be taxed at 60%, whereas they’re currently taxed at only 20%. Europeans are also in his sights; Trump won’t grant them favors. Generally, the new president will likely maintain good relations with some European countries, but he won’t address Europeans as a whole. He’ll stick to bilateral relations that better defend his interests.
As for whether, in this new context, Europeans will demonstrate a “greater willingness for autonomy in defense and foreign policy,” one can only hope. At best, they’ll move in this direction hesitantly. The European Union is now in a terminal phase. Its greatest failing, to use the distinction I made earlier, is draining the word “Europe” of any substantial content (identity, power, borders, principles) to make it synonymous with “universal values,” which, when applied to concrete situations, mean absolutely nothing.
Breizh-info.com: Trump is often seen as a symbol of resistance to globalization and “wokeism.” Do you think his re-election could galvanize nationalist movements in Europe and strengthen populist right-wing political figures?
Alain de Benoist: I doubt it very much. I completely understand the sympathy that certain nationalist circles feel toward some of Trump’s positions. The support shown to him by Giorgia Meloni and Viktor Orbán is also understandable. But does this mean Trump should be taken as an example? Not for a second, as political life is so different in America and on this side of the Atlantic. Just as African people are not Europeans with darker skin, Americans are not Europeans who speak English. The deep-seated reasons for Donald Trump’s success stem from realities very foreign to Europe. The role played by Elon Musk, the place of evangelical Christians (and Christian Zionists), who idolize the Bible and the Constitution, and the brutal tone of Trump’s interventions — none of these have an equivalent in Europe. Lazy minds react emotionally to buzzwords — immigration, wokeism, etc. — but they only see one aspect of things. Any attempt to “do like Trump” in Europe is, in my view, doomed to failure. Europeans should rather worry about what it means for us if America wants to “become great again.” If it succeeds, then we will truly be threatened.
Breizh-info.com: How do you see the dynamic between the United States, China, and Russia evolving? Could Europe find itself more isolated, or might it seek a new form of strategic partnership?
Alain de Benoist: The United States will continue to see Russia, and especially China, as the primary threats to their already shaky hegemony. Immediately, having failed to “bring Russia to its knees,” they’ll disengage from the European theater, which now holds little importance for them. They’ll only do everything they can to prevent Europe from becoming a power, that is, a rival. Europe will be left to face its responsibilities, which it is visibly unable to assume. The main risk for Europe isn’t “isolation” but continuing to count for nothing. This will persist until we see the necessary systemic shift we need.
Breizh-info.com: With Trump’s strong stance on immigration, do you think such an approach could inspire more restrictive migration policies in Europe?
Alain de Benoist: Perhaps, yes, but again, we must not transpose what cannot be transposed. Talking about immigration in itself is using a catch-all term that, on its own, means nothing. The immigration issues in the United States and Europe are fundamentally different. Latino immigrants, who seek to cross the Rio Grande by any means, are Catholics, not Muslims. They generally admire the country where they want to settle and seek to integrate. These are already significant differences (this explains why Trump won the votes of 12% of Blacks and 45% of Latinos). The question of borders also arises differently for both historical and geographical reasons. Finally, we cannot overlook the fact that, ultimately, it’s the general mobility spurred by the expansion of the capitalist system that is the fundamental cause of the social pathologies related to immigration that we experience.
Breizh-info.com: More broadly, Donald Trump’s victory reflects a significant divide in the United States. Do you think a secession of the country in the coming decades is possible?
Alain de Benoist: It is indeed a real problem. We’re seeing a return and intensification of political polarization in the United States that we aren’t accustomed to. The historical Democratic vote in the South (the “Dixiecrats”), due to historical reasons (Lincoln was a Republican), had long resulted in blurring the lines between Democratic and Republican platforms to the point of making them indistinguishable, especially for foreign observers. The South’s gradual shift to the Republicans changed this dynamic. Polarization took its toll, and today, Democrats and Republicans no longer speak to each other. There are now two Americas that feel only hatred for each other. In the medium term, anything is possible, starting with a civil war in this heavily armed country (there are more handguns than residents), which I personally see as a far more likely possibility in the U.S. than in Europe. In the weeks leading up to the presidential election, there was already more than enough anxiety about what might happen if Trump had not been elected. These passions aren’t likely to fade soon. Trump would be wise to have good bodyguards…
Breizh-info.com: Finally, Trump’s victory is a slap in the face to the mainstream media establishment, which, in France and internationally, campaigned for Harris. Do you think this latest defeat for the media caste will lead them to new approaches or views on world evolution, or has ideology blinded them irreparably?
Alain de Benoist: The symbol of the Democratic Party is the elephant. And, as we all know, an elephant Trump-ets a lot! I admit, watching the pinched faces, furrowed brows, and labored explanations of the media circus masters, who already imagined Kamala Harris moving into the White House after a “close election,” was a delightful spectacle. No early signs shook them, and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat didn’t serve as a lesson either! They can’t understand how it’s even possible that Trump won. More precisely, they can’t grasp that Trump won not in spite of but because of everything they find abhorrent about him. You’re right; these people are blind. They are blind because they live in an echo chamber and can’t see that the real world increasingly diverges from their wishful thinking. They are politically, morally, physically, and intellectually incorrigible. They dance and prattle on the Titanic’s deck, unaware that their world is collapsing and that the one to succeed it will be even harsher. They pull out ritualistic terms — “populism,” “hate speech,” “systemic racism,” “toxic masculinity” — but no one cares. Let them babble, let them sleep. History is being written without them — elsewhere.
