A brilliantly white tooth, a radiant smile: against a blue sky, former President Donald Trump sparkles with his red tie. “What could possibly go wrong” if he was re-elected? request The Economist in one.
The British magazine opted for irony on this sensitive subject which occupies the world in this election week: what will become of the United States in the event of a second Trump reign?
If certain newspapers did not comment this year, like the American titles The Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post, who decided not to publish“endorsement”, either from “support” to one or the other of the two candidates, The Economist, he doesn't hide it: “If we had a ballot, we would put it in the Kamala Harris ballot box,” states the article.
“The rule of law in danger”
It's not that he is particularly excited about the Democratic candidate, whom he describes as a guarantee of “stability” to defects “ordinary” but not “crippling”. The next president of the United States “no need to be a saint”, assure The Economist ; he just has to not be Donald Trump.
The newspaper is aimed in particular at its own readers who are among the voters “rational” tempted to vote Trump “by calculation”. Maybe they think Trump didn't do that much harm to the country during his first presidency – The Economist also cites some strong points, such as economic growth.
Or maybe they convince themselves that “ses pires instincts” would be limited by “his administration, the federal bureaucracy, Congress or the courts.” But thinking like this is not “pragmatic”, told them The Economist : it is illusory, and even dangerous. Because, the article assures:
“Making Trump the leader of the free world is to jeopardize the economy, the rule of law and international peace.”
“The world has changed”
Already because “guardrails” who contained Trump during his first term jumped, whether the members “reasonable” of his entourage, replaced by “faithful” exalted, or the constitutional brakes on his power – the Supreme Court, for example, granted presidents immunity for their official acts.
But also because its plans for the economy are worrying, continues the British media, which devoted its end of October to the good health of the American economy. This too would change with a Trump “who wants to return to the 19the century”, notably by handling customs duties and tax breaks as he wishes, as he wishes “reward your friends” or “punish your enemies”.
And, finally, because “the world has changed”. Trump would find himself facing a much more complex geopolitical situation than the one he had to manage at the time, between the stagnation of the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza, which threatens to become regional.
Faced with such challenges, how could Americans hand over the keys (to the country and the world) to such an unpredictable personality? This is how the magazine concludes, not at all ironic.
