The Geopolitical Consequences of American Decline and Democratic Downgrade

https://www.politico.eu/article/americas-democratic-slide-is-becoming-europes-problem/

This article is primarily of interest in that it counters the 'Make America Great Again' narratives of the Trumpite cult. China has indicated that Trump has provided them with a golden opportunity as his administration is unilaterally dismantling the Empire's institutions and alliances. They're loving the Trump era. It's a gift to Beijing.

However, this piece deals with the European response to Trumpism and the way in which his movement has not only broken trust, it's starting to have real legal ramifications and it is dismantling if not destroying the narrative of Atlanticism. Atlanticism is basically the framework for American leadership (or dominance) of the West. The US is not only the exceptional nation, it is the indispensable power, the pedagogue - in other words the messianic nation that also happens to be the richest and most powerful country in history.

Now whether the narrative (and all its metaphysical and moral implications) was really ever true is one thing, but no one can even pretend any more.

Contrary to MAGA assertions that the US is more respected under Trump, this article (and dozens more like it) reveal the opposite is true. And of course in recent days Canada has shown an openness to negotiating with the EU for some kind of deeper relationship or even a type of membership. Such a reality would shut down Trump's push for Canada to become a US state, but it also demonstrates just how broken the Washington-Ottawa relationship is. Again, this is all under Trump and at his behest.

Democracy is on the wane across the world and this represents some challenges to basic Enlightenment-Liberal frameworks, let alone the 'end of history' arguments made by some in the 1990's. And yet with Trump it is attached to a political and social crisis, and when these factors are taken in on a cumulative level, it's safe to say (with Casas-Zamora) that the United States is in decline.

The report equates democratic erosion with security problems. As one who is not quite sold on the wonders of democracy, I would counter that the issue is not democratic erosion which is not a cause, but a symptom. What's the problem then? It's a loss and breakdown of social consensus. The culture is fragmented and polarized. This leads to a loss of trust which in turn delegitimizes democratic processes and all of this leads to an increase in vigilantism, reliance on authoritarian-draconian measures, and civil unrest.

Where the argument made by Casas-Zamora really begins to implode is in reference to a state like Russia. Casas-Zamora assumes the universality of democracy, that is that the ideals are applicable in all times and in all places. This is more of faith-conviction in Enlightenment Liberalism than something that can be justified philosophically or in terms of historical precedent.
Russia has never been democratic - ever. It is folly to think that simply introducing democracy will transform a society that has been shaped by a thousand years of ideology and history - a society that never experienced a Renaissance or Enlightenment. History also shows us that for many people (both individuals and nations) security comes first and is far more important than rights or privileges. Geography can play a part in this reality - something that is not easily changed.

It's complicated and thus to make a statement like the following is simply ignorant -

“I have to think that a fully democratic Russia, with checks and balances, with freedom of the press, with civil society organizations able to organize themselves and hold public officials to account, would not have invaded Ukraine. It’s plain as that,”

It also ignores other realities - the claims states make and the narratives they tell about themselves, versus how other nations perceive their claims, the weight of history, and evidence which demonstrates such claims to be dubious.

Ukraine was invaded because it has been a platform for Atlanticist expansion in a conflict that has been going on for over twenty years. Putin sounded the alarm and issued stark warnings back in 2007 at The Munich Security Conference - fifteen years before his full invasion. The White House escalated the conflict with its sponsorship of NATO expansion, the placement of ABM systems (which are covertly offensive weapons), the abandonment of anti-proliferation treaties, and finally the Maidan Coup in 2014.

Talk of NATO expansion into Ukraine and the Caucasus and even hints of nuclear weapons placement compelled Putin to act - a pre-emptive invasion as he would see it. This narrative is viewed as dubious by many (if not most) people but it's no different than the one offered by Bush in 2003 when he attempted to justify his aggressive invasion of Iraq. In actuality, Putin's argument for pre-emption is far more credible.

Finally, the advance of the AfD in Germany and other Right-wing (and Neo-Fascist) political parties in Europe represents an existential crisis for the advocates of democracy. They want the state to intervene and treat these parties as a security threat. In doing so they reveal that democracy has failed and is not universal but can only function in the context of a social consensus. If the consensus has been broken, they want the state to take authoritarian measures (in terms of elections, media, education, and the like) to block these groups and shepherd the democratic process. And yet when other countries take similar action and implement protective measures, they decry it as abuse and corruption. The truth is democracy is not universal and if it's not, then there are some narratives that need to be re-thought, even if the conclusions (in some cases) are distressing to its staunchest advocates.

See also:

https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2024/02/atlanticisms-attempt-to-curtail-rise-of.html

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2024/01/mohlers-vanguard-nation.html