The Triumph of Trump
All around the world, people are talking about the triumph of Trump in the American elections, expressing either concern or hope (depending on their point of view) for the emergence of a new era. However, when closely examining the American electoral results, one cannot say that Trump achieved a great triumph. If we look at the actual number of votes, Trump secured roughly 51% compared to his opponent Kamala Harris's 48%; essentially, America was split in half. Trump's victory appears clear-cut when considering the number of electoral votes: 312 against 226 (57% versus 43%). But this outcome is influenced by the American electoral system, an heir of an 18th-century concept, which, in effect, gave member states, rather than voters directly, the power to select the president. Often, the elected president has even received fewer votes than the defeated candidate.
Certainly, though, Trump raises apprehension for what we can define as his unpredictability: as he himself has often declared, he seems to act "instinctively," meaning impulsively, without considering the consequences of his actions and without listening to the myriad of experts who typically surround every head of state. Consider, for example, the dramatic event of the Capitol Hill assault: at best, Trump did not want it, but nevertheless, it was a consequence of his claims of electoral fraud and refusal to accept defeat. Democracy is based on the recognition of electoral results that legitimize power.
The idea that Trump is ushering in a new historical era seems a bit exaggerated to me: this is not comparable to the French Revolution in Europe or the Khomeinist revolution in the Arab world; there is always political continuity that a democratic president can hardly overturn. In truth, while Trump’s persona is exceptional, the triumph of his political line is not. As Rampini argued, "Trumpism" would have prevailed even without Trump's victory: indeed, Kamala Harris had come close to his stance, albeit with more caution and moderation, and even Biden pursued policies that, stripped of Trump's excesses and theatrics, were not so different.
The crucial point is that throughout the West, a so-called new right has emerged and continues to gain traction, even reaching governance in some countries (Italy, Austria, the Netherlands). Meanwhile, the left seems to be losing ground, managing to counter the new right only by forming alliances with the traditional right (as in Germany and the EU). The question, then, is why the left finds itself in decline. This seems to be the essential issue.
It has been observed that Harris was supported by the so-called star system, Hollywood, intellectuals, and prestigious universities, while Trump increasingly gained support among the lower classes, traditionally aligned with the left. The problem, I believe, is that the left across the West appears to be losing its preferential connection with the poorer segments of the population—the role of guarantor and promoter of social justice.
Traditionally, the left has aimed to address the problems of the less fortunate. In the past, "workers" was used to describe the poorest, but now the most disadvantaged include precarious workers, the unemployed, the underemployed, those living paycheck to paycheck, and those at risk of poverty. They are no longer a majority, but they still represent millions. Yet, they are increasingly drawn away from the left. Today, the poorest neighborhoods and marginalized peripheries, which still exist unfortunately, are no longer strongholds of the left; they are increasingly voting right. This shift marks a crisis for the left.
We cannot simply attribute the right-wing votes of the poor to ignorance, populist propaganda, and similar dismissive notions. In Western democracies, demagoguery affects both the right and the left, and we cannot assume that those who disagree with us are merely foolish or dishonest, as implied by many leftist intellectuals. Therefore, we must analyze the causes of this historical upheaval.
I believe the key issue is that the left has shifted from championing the weak to primarily advocating for issues like gay unions, surrogacy, "woke" culture, and migrants. These are very different concerns, and there is no reason to think that someone struggling to make ends meet is troubled by the fact that some wealthy individual cannot access surrogacy or by refugees' rights. The concerns of the weak are more often addressed by the right, which is why they are increasingly voting in that direction.
So the question becomes: why does the left prioritize issues that matter less to the most disadvantaged? In my view, the left needs to reassess its course. The successful left in the West—the governing left—considers the consumer as essential, without whom entrepreneurs cannot exist. Simply put, no business can survive without selling, and sales depend on wealth. Paying workers well is the best way to foster production growth. Economic prosperity requires general well-being. If workers are underpaid, who then buys the products?
This model, leaving aside the idea that producers and consumers are inherently opposed, explains why the state must be 'social.' In fact, in the West, while entrepreneurship enjoys freedom, about 40% of income is managed by the state (which also controls large enterprises under a private regime). This model has made our countries the most prosperous, as well as free and democratic.
However, since '68, economic issues have been sidelined; the prosperity that masses began to taste was labeled "consumerism" (Pasolini said consumerism was the real fascism); alienation, sexual freedom, homosexuality, feminism, and similar topics dominated the discourse. While these are important, they matter little to those struggling financially; they are issues that concern the wealthier. Thus, the leftist culture replaced economic aspects with those of alienation, consumerism, gay rights, etc.: this is, in my view, the ideological trajectory.
Today, the success of the right among the poorer classes is mainly linked to its focus on two crucial issues that genuinely concern those groups: globalization and immigration, on which the left insists on maintaining an ideological stance disconnected from the real situation.
Regarding globalization, it does not impoverish the West as a whole. China's growth, for example, did not lead to Western poverty; quite the opposite. In fact, when technological progress allows us to produce more than we can consume, the traditional zero-sum thinking no longer applies. Yet, globalization has led to income polarization: a "made in China" product costing half of one produced in Italy undermines Italian jobs, often impacting the less wealthy.
If foreign production is cheaper, national companies must reduce costs by limiting wages; if political regulations prevent this, industrial desertification increases. Income disparity is primarily an effect of globalization. While some Westerners have seen significant income gains, many now fear a decline in living standards—a situation that had not occurred for centuries in the West. In the U.S., Trump's policies to curb globalization led to development and full employment—the most effective way to increase wages.
A similar phenomenon is evident in immigration. A century ago, Italian immigrants arriving in America were met with job offers on the docks. Today, the availability of modest jobs is dwindling due to technological advancement, leaving immigrants with no work and posing a threat to the poorest.
Furthermore, resistance to immigration spans the advanced world, from America to Australia, Europe to Japan, crossing political divides from left to right and center. Are they all crazy? All foolish? Certainly not; this resistance stems from concrete realities. Migrants willing to accept less can be a resource for the wealthy but pose a fierce threat to the less well-off; think, for example, of domestic workers or caregivers, now almost entirely foreign—Italian workers are no longer even contacted.
Nor do I believe immigration can solve the problems of the countries migrants come from; it may even worsen them. Now, the left ideologically supports immigration, while the right opposes it. So is it any wonder that Parioli votes more left-wing and Garbatella more right-wing?
The left, oddly enough, supports globalization and immigration, thus ceasing to represent the interests of weaker workers. As a result, the left loses sight of the economic needs of the less privileged, becoming preoccupied with what some call "bourgeois snobbery" or "radical chic" issues. The new right owes its success to its opposition to globalization and immigration—stances that, ultimately, even the left cannot ignore entirely.