US Midterms: A Global Litmus Test for Democracy and Alliances

Martin Wolf suggests that a Republican victory or even a 50/50 split in the US midterms would encourage far-right and far-left groups in Europe. These groups may adopt a strategy of being the most outrageous person in the room to achieve electoral success. Anne Applebaum describes this phenomenon as the successful globalization of extreme, indeed crazy, politics.

Wolf expresses deep concern about what the midterm results will reveal about the future of American democracy and the United States' ability to continue leading the free world. His concern is personal, rooted in his family's history of fleeing Nazi persecution.

According to Anne Applebaum, the current US administration does not view the United States as the leader of the democratic world and shows little interest in its old democratic allies. Instead, the US is shifting towards a quasi-imperial stance within its own hemisphere, asserting the right to demand mineral rights or government changes in countries like Latin America, Canada, and Greenland.

Applebaum explains that foreign policy is now dictated by the interests of a ruling ideological clan and associated business groups. This represents a radical change in thinking and behavior, to which both America's allies and enemies are struggling to adjust. A key question for American voters is whether this is the kind of world and United States they desire.

Furthermore, the administration's attitude towards the American government and political system is described as radical. They advocate for the dismantling of American government and the politicization of regulatory agencies.

Anne Applebaum emphasizes that if the Democratic Party, or a coalition including a segment of the Republican Party, fails to secure majorities in the next Congress, the 'cannibalization' of the government will accelerate. This refers to the ongoing efforts to dismantle American government and politicize its regulatory agencies.

A critical outcome of these midterms is the ability to ensure free elections in 2028. If the current trajectory of politicizing regulatory agencies continues unchecked, it will be very hard, if not impossible, to guarantee the integrity of future elections. The administration's approach to the American political system is considered radical, making this election exceptionally significant.

Anne Applebaum explains that one of the unique aspects, both an advantage and disadvantage, of the American electoral system is its decentralization into 50 separate state systems, with variations even within states. This structure prevents a single national leader, like Maduro in Venezuela, from unilaterally rejecting election results by controlling a national electoral commission, as there is no 'single button' for a president to press to control outcomes.

However, despite this decentralization, multiple attempts to manipulate results have occurred over the past year. Applebaum points to the practice of gerrymandering, a historically old issue in America, which has now, unusually, been instigated by the federal government attempting to influence states to redraw electoral boundaries for partisan benefit. This indicates that while national manipulation is difficult, localized threats to electoral integrity persist.

Anne Applebaum highlights ongoing Republican efforts to manipulate electoral outcomes, including attempts to redraw electoral boundaries via lawsuits, many of which have been successful. There have also been efforts to nationalize voter data by demanding states turn over voter rolls to the Department of Justice; however, most states have successfully resisted these attempts through lawsuits.

Applebaum notes the use of baseless narratives about mass illegal immigrant voting, for which there is no evidence, as a justification for potential federal intervention. Fears exist that federal forces, such as ICE or FBI agents, could be deployed on election day to intimidate or deter legal voters, particularly those who are fearful of uniformed authorities. There are also concerns about post-election challenges, where close results might be declared illegitimate based on unsubstantiated claims of illegal votes, potentially leading to demands for reruns. Applebaum recalls that the political formation behind these efforts previously attempted to overthrow the 2020 election results on January 6, 2021, and block its electoral outcome.

Anne Applebaum states that the United States no longer serves as a primary model for political systems worldwide, noting, "I don't think anybody looks to the US and says that's a really great political system and we'd like to have it." Instead, far-right or Trump-identified political movements in Europe and Latin America now imitate Trump's tactics, seeking similar victories.

A prime example is Brazil, where former president Jair Bolsonaro attempted to overthrow an election result, and his son is now a leading candidate in an upcoming election, having imitated Trump's tactics. Trump-like parties are also seen elsewhere in Europe.

Beyond political tactics, Applebaum argues that the US struggles as a model democracy due to domestic issues. She points out that Americans often lack healthcare and have a lower life expectancy compared to people in Europe or Japan, diminishing the country's appeal as an ideal state to follow.

Anne Applebaum identifies Russia as a direct beneficiary of the shift in US policy, particularly from the Biden to a potential Trump-led administration. She notes that while the Biden administration was criticized for being an insufficient ally to Ukraine, it was at least an ally, whereas Trump is not. Trump's rhetoric has gone a long way in convincing Russians they can win the war in Ukraine, shattering confidence for Ukraine and Europeans who view a Ukrainian collapse as a catastrophe.

Illiberal movements within democracies also benefit, using American political shifts to validate their own agendas. Groups like the AfD in Germany or Marine Le Pen's followers can point to the US and say, "Well, this is the way we're supposed to do things. Look, America's shown us." This global imitation of Trump's tactics severely damages the confidence of allies who rely on US support against Russian aggression.

Anne Applebaum explains that China benefits differently from the perceived weakening of American alliances and influence. As the appeal of American democracy diminishes, China steps in, presenting itself as a 'rule-abiding leader' in contrast to the chaos projected by Trump. This allows China to bolster its global influence and propaganda narrative.

Autocratic regimes worldwide exploit American volatility and unpredictability as evidence that democracy is ineffective. This reinforces their long-standing narrative that democracy doesn't work, with Trump's actions providing them with supporting evidence.

However, Applebaum also notes that some of Trump's support for specific movements can backfire, citing his attempts to undermine Mark Carney in Canada, which inadvertently made Carney more popular.

Europe is currently experiencing an intense electoral cycle marked by a broad shift to the right, mirroring trends in America. Major states like France are preparing for consequential presidential and parliamentary elections. Centrist parties, including both center-right and center-left, are struggling to win in a media environment that amplifies extremism and favors the loudest voices.

Anne Applebaum suggests that a Democratic wave election in the US could provide European centrist parties with valuable insights into how to win in this challenging media landscape. Such a victory might offer a strategic roadmap for reclaiming political narratives and maintaining power against increasingly vocal radical left and right wings.

Anne Applebaum states that a Republican victory or even a 50/50 split in the US midterms would be highly encouraging for both the European far-right and, surprisingly, the far-left. These extremist movements interpret the strategy of being the 'most outrageous person in the room at all times' as a proven method for electoral success.

Paradoxically, in an era where globalization is ostensibly being rejected in favor of isolationism, modern elections are more international than ever. Applebaum observes strikingly similar political polarizations and arguments across diverse countries like the US and Poland, attributing this phenomenon to a shared media environment, where people use the same apps like TikTok, Twitter, and Facebook, which reward extremism with attention. This makes the US midterms a global litmus test for various political strategies.

Anne Applebaum argues that the United States and Russia now share an interest in undermining the European Union. She suggests that one reason the United States backs far-right European parties is to weaken the EU's ability to regulate American companies. Applebaum notes that the European Union is currently the only entity on the planet really capable of regulating these companies, and American companies do not want to be regulated, even to conform to the local laws of the countries where they do business. She adds that this is another reason Europe needs its own technology. Russia, by contrast, wants to undermine the EU because it disrupts Moscow's attempts to dominate politics, especially in the eastern half of the continent, and because the EU sometimes limits the deals it wants to make.

Russia, on the other hand, supports the far-right to weaken the EU because it disrupts their attempts to dominate politics, particularly in Eastern Europe. Russia seeks a world that is 'safer for corruption,' where they can conduct deals without the limitations sometimes imposed by the European Union.

Historically, the European Union was designed as a liberal internationalist project, explicitly created to overcome the consequences of extreme nationalism that led to World War II. Its current vulnerability to external pressures from both the US and Russia represents a significant challenge to its foundational principles.

Anne Applebaum suggests that the economic consequences of destroying the European Union, especially its single market, are so severe that a full dissolution is unlikely. She points to Brexit as a deterrent, noting that its outcomes, which weakened and impoverished Britain, have 'really come home to a lot of European leaders.' This example highlights the catastrophic economic changes that would result from a country leaving a major economic bloc like the EU or the Eurozone.

Another factor contributing to the EU's resilience is the nature of European parliamentary systems. In most European countries (with France being an exception), governments rely on coalitions involving multiple parties. Having far-right parties in a coalition or within a parliamentary system often necessitates compromise, which can temper their more radical objectives and prevent the complete destruction of democratic structures. Applebaum also emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between legitimate opposition to immigration policy and efforts to undermine democracy itself.

Anne Applebaum clarifies that Congress does possess significant controls over the presidency, even in foreign policy. She states, "Congress does control the budget. Congress can block funding... Congress can investigate wrongdoing. There are things that Congress can do." While a lively debate exists among Democrats in Washington regarding strategies to repair alliances and block the president's 'worst instincts,' creative solutions are being sought, and their effectiveness will depend heavily on the midterm results.

A Democratic-controlled Senate would make a big difference, particularly in influencing appointments. A Democratic-controlled Senate and House could collectively influence budgets, and even policies, as Congress retains the ability to pass and enforce laws. This shift in congressional power would create a different political atmosphere, reducing the 'impunity' currently surrounding the president.

Applebaum anticipates that institutions and firms would begin to behave differently, losing their 'fear of crossing the president or of speaking out' that has been observed in some US government institutions, companies, and law firms. This change in atmosphere would significantly impact how the president can act, both domestically and internationally.

Anne Applebaum acknowledges that the US presidency would remain very powerful, even with significant midterm shifts. She states, "Yes, of course, the president remains very powerful." This power stems from constitutional authorities, including veto power, regardless of congressional majorities. The nature of a second-half term for a president, often referred to as a 'lame duck' period, remains highly uncertain.

Applebaum also warns that observing Donald Trump's trajectory over the past 18 months, which has seen changes in his behavior, suggests that everyone should be prepared for "some very extreme policy shifts, radical statements." This indicates that even a presidency with diminished political capital could still exert considerable influence and instability through its actions and rhetoric.

Anne Applebaum asserts that the central task for European governments over the next year is to help the Ukrainians win the war, as "it's really only a Ukrainian victory that ensures stability in Europe." A successful outcome means preserving the Ukrainian state with defensible borders, potentially along the current contact line, and establishing some form of negotiation process with Russia regarding occupied territories.

Applebaum warns that the alternative, a collapse of Ukraine, though currently unlikely, would be catastrophic for Europe. Such a scenario would lead to a massive influx of millions of refugees and Ukraine transforming into an Afghanistan-like guerrilla war state, as the Ukrainian army would continue fighting, albeit changing its tactics. This could result in Russian troops moving further west and an immediate, unprecedented challenge to Europe.

She also addresses the misconception that if the war ended, things would return to normal. Applebaum stresses that European governments must focus on what it will take to win the war and secure a real ceasefire, as stability hinges on Ukraine's success.

Anne Applebaum suggests that a Democratic victory, resulting in control of both houses of Congress, would send a crucial signal to the world, particularly to Europeans. She believes it would remind everyone "that the MAGA movement is not inevitable and it hasn't won some kind of victory that will last forever."

Applebaum critiques the MAGA movement's definition of 'Western civilization,' interpreting it as 'white Christian imperialism,' which she notes is not a vision that many Europeans desire. While such a Democratic victory would be significant, Applebaum cautions that MAGA ideology will persist within US politics, meaning a full return to a pre-Trump era is unlikely. Furthermore, she expresses sorrow and horror that by the end of the next two years, the US will be considerably weaker due to its performance in the Middle East and its 'strange alignment with Putin,' which demonstrates weakness rather than strength.

Anne Applebaum asserts that a Europe totally dependent on a much weaker United States would be endangering itself. She believes that European leaders and the public must begin to consider what a sovereign Europe looks like and how to maintain that sovereignty over the coming decades. This implies that the era of total reliance on the US is becoming increasingly risky for European security and stability.

Applebaum emphasizes that this project of European self-sufficiency will be important for both leaders and the public. This reflects a broader understanding that the geopolitical landscape is shifting, requiring Europe to develop greater autonomy and resilience in its foreign policy and security arrangements.

Anne Applebaum declines to make specific electoral predictions, saying she does not trust opinion polls and cannot forecast individual Senate seats. She does, however, identify a basic prerequisite for the beginning of significant political change in the US: winning both houses of Congress, and winning the House by a margin large enough to govern. She estimates that a truly solid majority would require a margin of roughly 15 to 20 seats. Without that, she says, people will keep fighting into 2028.

Applebaum states that winning both houses of Congress, and specifically winning the House with enough of a margin to effectively govern—requiring approximately 15 to 20 seats for a truly solid majority—is a "basic prerequisite for the beginning of change." Without such substantial margins, she anticipates that domestic political conflict will likely persist, potentially continuing until the 2028 elections.