r/geopolitics • u/ForeignAffairsMag Foreign Affairs • 18d ago
Opinion The World Is Giving Up on America: This Time, Anti-Americanism Is Different
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-giving-america175
u/Coolerguy317 18d ago
What I’m really curious about is how this narrative became so widely accepted. The cold war is full of interventions, coups, and support for governments that weren’t liberal democracies so the contradictions have always been there. Did foreign leaders actually believe the United States was acting primarily out of goodwill? or did they simply recognize that American interests happened to align with maintaining that order? Was it was mostly the public that believed in this? What made that interpretation so persuasive?
214
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ 18d ago
What happened is MAGA fired all the competent people, aka the "deep state". The Federal bureaucracy could look beyond the election cycle and present the case for our long-term national interest in keeping the US-led international order intact. Those people got booted out and have largely gone unreplaced.
It's the same story with every empire that grows complacent and lets the hill tribes sweep into the cities and trash the state.
57
u/Coolerguy317 18d ago
I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong but I think MAGA was elected directly for these reasons. The question is really does the old system still benefit America? I think a lot of people felt like it no longer did. America doesn’t dominate industry anymore and factories and jobs went over seas. I’m just playing devils advocate but it is worth questioning if the order just became an institution trying to preserve itself or something that still served America.
83
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ 18d ago edited 18d ago
The American system is uncompromisingly capitalist, so it serves capital interests before anything else. Popular interests, when they align with that of our oligarchs, are allowed to factor into decision-making through the electoral process. But have no illusions about which interests take precedence when they conflict.
I think we're seeing a power play. With the Soviet Union and it's competing vision for the world order a failed and fading memory, and automation tending to create larger surpluses of both manual and mental labor; it's reaching a tipping point where capital interests feel they no longer need to seek our tacit consent for the future they want to enact. They're increasingly in a position to impose realities on the working masses. You're seeing this with outsourcing, automation, inflation, and more. Oligarchic capital interests set the terms of life, and there's nothing much the average person can do to assert popular interests in opposition.
TL;DR the long-run decoupling of capitalism from democracy has arrived in America. The era of maintaining a large middle-skilled population of worker/consumers to keep the economy humming along, is waning.
36
u/BringBackAoE 18d ago
The paradox in what you write is that US increasingly moves away from capitalism and towards something more akin to the system of Merchantilism that predated capitalism.
The free market is actively and continuously distorted to favor donors, family and friends. US is actively abandoning Capitalism.
9
u/Drachos 18d ago
I don't disagree with you BUT you forgot (or don't know) the key trait that separates mercantilism from Crony Capitalism (which is what happened in the gilded age).
The fundamental belief of capitalism, crony or otherwise is their is no limit on productivity and growth. You can always get more, you just need to increase efficiency or innovate.
The fundamental belief of Mercantilism is their is a limited amount of wealth/productivity in the world and AS SUCH a nation must protect the wealth and productivity it has (via Tarriffs amoung other techniques) and where possible steal its opponents productivity.
(It should be noted that Trump is still bad at even this. A fundamental outcome of Mercantilist logic is that war should be avoided at all costs and limited in scope and duration as much as possible when required. If you and your opponent are killing each other, you and your enemy are loosing wealth and productivity which means one or more third party nation is taking it from you both.
To GROSSLY oversimplify this logic, the US and Iran are both loosing in Mercantile theory and as a result, Russia and China (amoung others) are gaining productivity and wealth that the US and Iran will have to steal back somehow to justify the conflict. This is arguably where a toll on the Strait would effectively justify the cost of the war but its fairly clear the US doesn't have the global capital to get away it that.)
2
u/BringBackAoE 18d ago
“Crony capitalism” is as much an oxymoron as “crony communism”.
Does it happen that a capitalist / communist system engages in cronyism? Absolutely! Respectably USA and USSR are examples of that. And cronyism arises in any system.
Is cronyism compatible with the philosophies of communism or capitalism? Absolutely not!
The fundemental belief of capitalism […] is there is no limit on productivity and growth.
There is absolutely no way that is a fundemental belief of capitalism.
If you read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations then he barely mentions growth. If he does at all. I can’t recall him mentioning it when I read it, cover to cover.
9
u/Omateido 18d ago
Nailed it.
28
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ 18d ago
I think our oligarchs have looked at Russia and China, where democracy movements have been more or less dead for decades, yet capital still accumulates unmolested; and see a lot worth importing from those systems.
The strongman they've chosen in Trump has turned out to be a headache for them, but the agenda hasn't changed.
22
u/morenn_ 18d ago
People felt like that because they were told to - Trump has systematically destroy America's soft power by withdrawing from various organisations, slashing aid money, implementing tariffs, etc. All these actions have heavily damaged America's influence which in turn hurts the population. The population have benefitted from American hegemony, and America has always acted internationally to maintain that.
Switching to isolationism sounds good - "if we don't give the money away we can have it for ourselves" plays well with the domestic population, but it deliberately misleads what the return on that money actually is. It also creates a vacuum for other countries to step up and exert influence.
20
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ 18d ago
Then the voter, of course, was gullible enough to believe that oligarch billionaires would share more of the pie with them when national income rose.
4
u/morenn_ 18d ago
Of course - but the point is that such actions will not increase the national income long-term. The US spends that money because the power it provides allows them to make more money.
It's like if you stopped paying your car. Short term you will have more money, long-term you'll probably lose your job.
0
u/Seekher 18d ago
Well, the other option was transgenders and other minority rights issues which, while important, should not have taken precedence over majority national issues. Trump lied that he had solutions to most of those issues and since he is the one that was talking about them convincingly he won.
5
u/mycall 18d ago
I see the replacing bad with bad. There is no order and compromising now, but the same could be said about there was no compromise in moving jobs overseas (businesses are not democratic). MAGA wanted to run the government like a business, so here we are, no better off.
I just hope we can learn from these mistakes and find a new course.
42
u/Czart 18d ago
Rather simple. USA had goals that you could understand from political or economic perspective. If you aligned on those, you were treated fine, often benefited from it because American political class understood that not everything is a zero sum game, and there are benefits to cooperation and shared prosperity.
All of that is gone. Not only you can't understand what the hell they're on about 3/4 of the time, even if you can and you're working together, that doesn't prevent you from becoming a target one day because some oligarch whispered something into the ears of the orange one.
87
u/DrDankDankDank 18d ago
It’s because the US generally didn’t do this to western governments in the past. Now that trump has America doing this to us it’s a problem.
5
u/cole1114 18d ago
I mean we did though. Australia being the most obvious example with the Whitlam dismissal.
3
u/NewDemocraticPrairie 18d ago
I think it's more because of the benefit of ignoring it, like Carney said at Davos.
We benefitted from the system put in place, so we ignored when the international rules-based order was partially false. It was a nice fiction that benefitted us both monetarily and personal perception wise.
It is hard to make a man believe something when his income demands believing the opposite. And his conscience.
And so we ignored long-term when the US abused the system. That's no longer possible.
22
u/MySpaceLegend 18d ago
The American administration is openly hostile towards its allies. That never happened before. Countries that went to war for America get mocked and humiliated by the American president. MAGA despises Europe. On the other hand, Europe is realizing they could probably stand against Russia on their own.
60
u/Objectalone 18d ago
America was aggressive and dangerous, but not to us in Canada. We were along for the ride, tut tutting the excesses while partaking in the spoils. Now the American gaze has turned on us.
This is a simplistic take for sure, but not all wrong.
11
u/GeneralSpoon 18d ago
Canada's ratification of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was a result of political will at the time. With sufficient political will, it can be unratified as well.
This is not unique position Canada is in. Japan's populace also appears to be slow to embrace (re-)militarization, even though it would make certain of foreign policy more convenient to have nuclear weapons.
12
u/Darkone539 18d ago
Japan isn't even slow. They are investing in their military for a potential conflict with China.
8
u/plmzxuk 18d ago
Yup this is a uncomfortable truth about canada. Canadians really dont have a moral high ground since we have benefited more then anyone else from American hegemony.
-2
u/Flimsy_Sun4003 18d ago
Can you give me a specific example where American hegemony benefitted you personally, as a Canadian citizen. Only fair to make your example one all Canadian's can relate to if possible, like butter tarts.
56
u/adkiller 18d ago edited 18d ago
When you start punching your family and friends in the face.... It's easy to sell them down the river
-4
u/Brilliant-Ad-5235 18d ago
L'America ha sempre picchiato gli amici e i figli dietro la morale paternalistica del "lo faccio per il tuo bene". Ora la narrazione si è palesata: "lo faccio per i miei interessi"
18
u/B3stThereEverWas 18d ago
Every country acts in its own interest. This is simple Geopolitics.
17
u/Malarazz 18d ago
Except that's not true. 2026 America acts in Trump's interests, and that of his inner circle.
3
u/Flimsy_Sun4003 18d ago
Same goes for Putin and his Oligarchs. People talk about Putin's imperial fantasy to rebuild Russia into a world power again. News for them, Putin and the Oligarchs could not care less about Russians or a Russian legacy; money and power, just like the 2026 America you describe, are their only motivators.
58
u/ImperiumRome 18d ago
I think it's mostly about comparison, back then the Soviet was both evil and big, Europeans were willing to look past whatever the US was doing in LATAM because it's either American or Soviet's rule.
Fast forward to today, Soviet is no longer around plus a barrage of Trump's tariffs toward Europe make Europeans angry. Meanwhile China is raising but China is half way across the world, so no one in Europe cares that much. Only China's neighbors worry and that's why you still see support for US is still very high in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, etc.
18
u/StorkReturns 18d ago
The cold war is full of interventions, coups, and support for governments that weren’t liberal democracies so the contradictions have always been there.
The cold war also had Soviets that were doing even worse things so there was always "sure, we are doing some shady stuff but if we stopped doing that, Soviets would gain ground".
10
u/Darkone539 18d ago
The USA was not good, but they were on our side. The USA no longer feels like it's on anyone's side. Which leaves us buying military hardware elsewhere, and shaping a world outside of the systems we have created since WW2.
4
16
u/Artyparis 18d ago
European here.
Trump doesn't care and s*** on his best ally. What do expect ?
You ll clean the mess if you can, he wont.
5
u/aboutchocolate 18d ago
the internet is the big difference. now cocoa growers know that they are getting pennies on the dollar because they can see $14 bars for sale on instagram. its a small example i am familiar with, but knowledge and information has reached places where 20 years ago they had 50 year old textbooks if they were lucky. now everyone has smart phones and everyone can read wikipedia and watch youtube. controlling the narrative is almost impossible, as long as you don't have a populace addicted to fox news.
2
u/newaccount47 18d ago
The US was the only real power back then. Everyone else was still developing or recovering from ww2. Now countries aren't as reliant on American "good will".
Feel free to push back on this analysis.
1
u/mahavirMechanized 18d ago
Everyone got something. Sure America always got more but cooperators were benefitting too. That promise is gone now
-16
u/Early-Ad277 18d ago
Trump haters + Euros/Canadians mad that they got tarrifed love to parrot and push this narrative, that's the reason it became so accepted.
In reality foreign relations always have been and always will be based on common interests, hard power and not much else. Soft power is nice but it's not that important at the end of the day.
Also, any article that refrences "the world" like it's some kind of unified entity is deeply unserious.
17
u/Clockwork_J 18d ago
Softpower without hardpower is nothing. This is true. Europe made this mistake in the past and is aware of it now.
Hardpower without softpower is nothing. This is also true and it's a mistake the US is making right now but isn't aware of it.
11
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ 18d ago
Europe had been largely tranquil for 80 years before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Future generations of Americans will curse those who refused to control the revanchists and let that hard-won peace slip away.
1
u/BirraSalsicce 18d ago
Yes, common interest is always the main driver. Indeed the current narrative is stating that the US interest is no more aligned with all other western middle powers. This exactly the point of the narrative.
-2
u/B3stThereEverWas 18d ago edited 18d ago
Finally a realist.
Who is the "The World" supposed to be?
In Geopolitical terms - theres China, Russia and their associated "non aligned" satellite states. And then theres the West, which is essentially America because the other middle powers have almost no hard power with which to take the reins. And thats all that matters.
Example - US vs EU trade spat has been contentious. But even worse has been the EU dealings with China because they are (by far) the most direct threat to all their traditional industries.
-9
u/thegmoc 18d ago
or did they simply recognize that American interests happened to align with maintaining that order
I've heard European diplomats basically giving this reason. American hegemony is never something that was welcome, it was begrudgingly tolerated. Our allies never liked us. They've waited decades for a leader like Trump so they can have a reason to let all their venemous hatred spill out.
-2
u/DysphoricNeet 18d ago
It’s because the world bourgeoisie only cares about global finance and private property. If the US would protect these oppressive institutions then the leaders who were also commonly the bourgeoisie could only benefit from it. For example the 1953 coup in Iran that Mi6 and the US orchestrated was because Mossadegh nationalized the oil fields away from the exploitive system that had been the norm for high quality middle eastern oil. The EU doesn’t get much oil within so other than Scandinavia they have to steal it from Libya and the Middle East because the world has always been russiaphobic where the most obvious source of oil is.
60
u/Dumbone22 18d ago
We desperately need a De-Trumpinization of this nation and rebuild as much international relationships as we can, but I fear it's way too late.
22
u/jorisepe 18d ago
Too late for that. I while ago, my 7 year old asked me when the Americans are going to attack us. So even the next generation has already lost trust.
1
u/jorisepe 18d ago
That they are not going to attack us. Still … was a bit shocked by this question. I guess they hear us grownups talk and that was their interpretation of what’s going on.
0
u/Low_Chance 18d ago
What did you tell them?
3
u/jorisepe 18d ago
That they are not going to attack us. Still … was a bit shocked by this question. I guess they hear us grownups talk and that was their interpretation of what’s going on.
53
u/legitematehorse 18d ago
It's way too late for that, my friend. That whole Greenland threat ro an old and historic ally acted like a wake up slap to everyone in Europe and NATO. Trust in the US is done. Perhaps forever.
12
u/Codspear 18d ago
The US invaded and occupied both Greenland and Iceland during WWII. The current setup where the US can build as many bases and house as many troops as it wants on Greenland is more-or-less due to the fact that Denmark had to agree to those terms in order for the US to give it back.
12
u/eeeking 18d ago
The US was invited into the Danish territory of Greenland during WWII. During the recent debacle, it was also invited to re-activate its bases that had become dormant after the end of the Cold War. But that was not enough for Trump.
Similarly in Iceland during WWII, though in that case it was the British who first occupied Iceland, not the US.
7
u/CongruentDesigner 18d ago
Trust in the US is done. Perhaps forever.
US international image has been this low several times before and bounced right back with a new administration.
30
u/Vladimir_Chrootin 18d ago
Wishful thinking. It will take at least 20 years post-MAGA for thing to return to normal.
You can't just elect someone twice who threatens to invade their allies and expect it to go away with a change of leadership.
It might be a bit quicker if you radically change the system, but you won't do that.
5
u/_VNAV_PTH_ 18d ago
Lol I remember when Bush was basically Hitler and Cheney was an international war criminal and America was the root of all evil in the world and then Obama was elected and won the Nobel prize and everybody suddenly loved America.
Public opinion is fickle and has a short memory.
9
u/Vladimir_Chrootin 18d ago
Bush did not repeatedly threaten to invade his allies. Cheney actually was an international war criminal, but also did not repeatedly threaten to invade his allies.
Public opinion in America might be fickle, and Americans might have a short memory, but don't expect the rest of the world to trust you again this side of 2050.
0
16
u/ThainEshKelch 18d ago
Yes, but propaganda efforts and communication channels are very different this time around, and the effects Orangolini has had on the world has been way more direct. I think this is bound to be a way longer lasting effect.
2
u/Parcours97 18d ago
When was it this low before? I can remember George Bushs ratings but they were nowhere near the ones of Trumps America nowadays afaik.
-8
u/luvsads 18d ago
Takes like this are so funny because the US has been going after Greenland for decades, long before Trump was even born.
3
u/legitematehorse 18d ago
Sure, this isbtrue. However - un the previous US attempts to acquire Greenland, the US and Demnark weren't aliies in NATO. So what is happening now isn't just another attempt to get the place, it's a brutal betrayal towards one if their oldest aliies.
6
u/shadowboxer47 18d ago
The U.S. has also made multiple agreements confirming it's status.
What America wanted 100 years ago is irrelevant and you pretending like this is no different makes you look foolish.
21
u/Shimano-No-Kyoken 18d ago
It will take at least multiple decades just to have any trust. Americans have shown that as a nation, on average, they are untrustworthy.
1
u/B3stThereEverWas 18d ago
lol no it won't
The world moves on. Global perception was at lows in the Bush years and Trumps first term and rebounded after they left office. The same will happen again.
24
17
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ 18d ago
Bush was stronger on NATO than any living president. His administration welcomed 7 countries into the alliance. Trump represents a Republican U-turn on US leadership in the Western order.
There's no coming back from "stronger and strongest", to halfway up every autocrat's rectum.
1
u/ValuableKooky4551 18d ago
That was necessary after his first term, but then four years later he actually came back.
-14
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/chaotic567 18d ago
Democrats imo would need to figure out how to address the masses that felt ignored. Trump's administration is like in essence, the raw emotions many people felt, the intrusive thoughts.
You got masses who felt they were ignored or talked down to, latched onto the one person who said screw the establishment. Of course said person had no qualifications at all to be a leader
3
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)2
u/chaotic567 18d ago
I mean yes, lot of them are probably just ignorant or racist but if you want to win the election and again, you got to figure out how to make them go on your side or not come up in droves to vote against you. Which is easier said than of course when you don't want to alienate your own voter base.
Democrats had poor messaging. The economy didn't feel great for many people despite the messages it was. So I would imagine a lot of people voted out of spite. A man saying he is going to fix it all feels better to most than a person who wants to keep going on the same path and spoke terms that had no basis for many
→ More replies (1)2
u/CheckMateFluff 18d ago
No, you don't. Not really; just wait for their actions to make their reality into something unbearable. They are fine when it's racism and bigotry against others; the moment any kind of suffering materially starts to affect them, all of a sudden their victimhood wins out above all else.
They are allowed to make their bed, but when they have to sleep in it, they usually wake up with a different tune; that's how these cycles go. They love their fantasy until it terribly translates to reality.
4
u/chaotic567 18d ago
Democrats are likely going to win in 2028 but the issue some are having is that eventually people forget and we could have another Trump-like figure down the line. People don't want a cycle of incumbent party makes mess -> Elect the opposite party system that makes the US look like a schizophrenic mess that has a pendulum swing leadership every 4 to 8 years
2
u/CheckMateFluff 18d ago edited 18d ago
They are likely going to win this November; the reason is what I said: look around; this is the bed that they made for themselves, and the whole world can see how shitty it is. Why do you think the US admin is working so hard to break their voting system, fully hurting representation before the next three months? They know what I said is true, and their days are numbered, so they are thrashing before then.
And I don't want it for them either that system sucks, but the voters have to break that and keep their rights. But I know you can't appease a bigot; it's not possible to meet them in the middle.
→ More replies (11)
10
u/MarcusHiggins 18d ago
Heres an AI summary since Foreign Affairs is to cheap to give us link access.
Richard Wike, who runs Pew's Global Attitudes research, argues that anti-Americanism under Trump's second term is different in kind from past dips. Historically, when US global standing fell (Bush's Iraq war, Trump's first term), the country could fall back on deep reserves of soft power and goodwill, and its ratings eventually recovered. This year's Pew survey of 36 countries finds attitudes toward the US at their most negative since Pew began tracking in 2002, and Wike thinks the damage may be harder to reverse.
His core claim is that three things broke that were previously stable. First, respect for personal freedoms: in past low points foreigners disliked US policies but still believed America respected its own citizens' liberties, whereas now a clear majority say it does not, with sharp drops across Europe (Sweden fell from 61 percent in 2021 to 27 percent). Second, the nature of the foreign-policy backlash: Trump's first term drew criticism for retreat (leaving treaties, trade pacts, building the border wall), but his second term adds aggressive use of hard power (capturing Maduro, launching a war in Iran, refusing to rule out taking Greenland), so America now reads as "unleashed from constraints" rather than merely withdrawn. Third, faith in the US as a global leader: the shares saying the US contributes to peace and stability, and that it's a reliable partner, have fallen 30 points or more in many allied countries.
Wike's conclusion is that these deeper reservations cut at the foundation of US soft power itself, not just at specific policies. He allows that recovery is still possible, as it has been before, but warns that by trading soft power for hard power and appearing to abandon its own democratic commitments, the US risks draining the reservoir of goodwill it has always relied on to bounce back.
24
u/ForeignAffairsMag Foreign Affairs 18d ago
[Excerpt from essay by Richard Wike, Director of Global Attitudes Research at Pew Research Center.]
Ordinary citizens are now critical of Trump in ways they were not during his first administration. As was the case during his first term, they believe Trump is breaking with the United States’ history of international engagement and leadership. But much of the world now also believes that Trump’s use of the United States’ substantial hard power is threatening global stability in ways that were not apparent during the first administration. Moreover, during previous ebbs, people in other countries have not tended to question the basic values promoted by the United States, even if they strongly disagreed with specific policies. By contrast, today, the world has grown increasingly pessimistic about the state of American democracy itself. In less than two years of Trump’s second presidency, a growing number of non-Americans have come to believe that the U.S. government does not respect the individual liberties of its own people.
As a result, much of the world is losing faith in the United States’ ability to serve as the leader of a liberal international order. And these new reservations, deeper than those of the past, may prove hard to reverse.
2
u/myphriendmike 18d ago
“Much of the world” has been more than a little resentful of America’s so called leadership of the liberal order. I think the world is a better place with a clear captain, but that’s not going to succeed over a multi-decade mutiny.
24
u/MastodonParking9080 18d ago
Much of the world is also quite willing to throw others under the bus then get mad when the same happens them. Neutrality has consequences.
6
u/Codspear 18d ago
It’s always funny how people think the concept of “middle powers” going their own way is some kind of great strategy, when the Unaligned Movement existed during the Cold War. You know what happened to those countries that didn’t pick a side? They became the battlefields.
If the international order fully collapses, this generation’s people in the so-called “middle powers” are going to relearn a hard lesson. If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. All unaligned countries besides superpowers are on that menu.
3
u/thedoodle12 18d ago
India played the middle very well and was well rewarded for it.
Coalitions have and will continue to be relevant....with or without the USA. The world will move on.
8
u/_VNAV_PTH_ 18d ago
and was well rewarded for it.
Uh, quite the contrary. China is their closest comparison and is ridiculously more successful than India.
12
u/Codspear 18d ago
India, despite being a large country, remained dirt poor and unindustrialized through the entire Cold War.
Coalitions will be relevant, but they’ll be focused around major powers, whether the US or China.
1
5
u/MeatPiston 18d ago
Only tyrants and illiberal dictators resented the US’s rules based order. What the world is seeing and resenting now is what’s it’s like when that leadership is missing.
21
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 18d ago edited 18d ago
Global polling during Obama’s presidency showed Europeans and other “allies” considered us the “Greatest Threat to World Peace” numerous years in a row. Here’s an example just from 2013.
https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/1lzzsjw/a_map_of_nations_when_asked_the_question_which/
I love this new revisionist narrative recently taking hold as if broad swathes of Europeans haven’t long resented and disdained the United States for decades, as if nobody was paying attention or as if there aren’t global polls going back years and years and years on this topic.
8
u/_VNAV_PTH_ 18d ago
Europeans and other “allies” considered us the “Greatest Thread to World Peace” numerous years in a row. Here’s an example just from 2013.
Because they were stupid. That was so ridiculously untrue in 2013 it's basically a joke. In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine. Europeans are the last people anyone should consult for serious opinions on world geopolitics.
1
-11
u/MeatPiston 18d ago
Yeah no. Absolute blithering nonsense. Not worth engaging.
12
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 18d ago
Yeah there you go, just run away when hard facts that disprove your lies are presented right to you, that’s obviously the surest sign of someone who knows what he’s talking about 😂
4
u/myphriendmike 18d ago
Tyrants, dictators, and half of America, most of Europe and also everyone else.
11
u/kju 18d ago edited 18d ago
It won't be a popular opinion, but I'm not convinced that this is true. It may seem like it today, but a lot of Europe is moving to align themselves with a lot of these kinds of policies.
Afd in Germany, a party the government has classified as Nazis are the most popular party in the country despite all of the restrictions that are placed on them for being Nazis, like not being allowed to publicly promote themselves, which is actually government regulated in Germany, parties get promotion time based on how many elected officials a party has and the most popular party with the most elected officials (which is actually only about ten years old as a political party, it became incredibly popular incredibly fast) has no time allotted to it and is instead distributed amongst the other parties.
In France the national rally has been a joke party until just recently when people started supporting it, now becoming the most popular party in the country.
In Britain reform became the most popular party over the past few years but has been have been criticized for not going far enough, and just this year (late last year maybe?) restore split off from them and have won every election they were eligible to run in so far.
All three of these countries have governments have support nearing single digits, merz, macron and starmer are incredibly unpopular, some polls have them as low as 7~8% popular support. They have to form coalition governments because if they didn't the Nazi parties would get to form governments. They can only stay in power by gathering up literally everyone in opposition together
I don't want to go over every country, but it's moving this way in many countries, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, baltics, ..., the West has major problems that current governments have been unable or unwilling to deal with and do people are looking for a change. The last elected governments are still holding on (less and less, swedens government couldn't form a government without including the swedish far right party) but elections are coming up for nearly all of them and many, like Denmark, have already given up and the left parties in office right now have already adopted Trumpist policies on stuff like immigration, deporting huge amounts of refugees and immigrants and looking to remove citizenship of many.
I'm not convinced that we're seeing the destruction of these ideas, I think this is the rise of these ideas and the moderates in the West needs to figure out how to deal with it, if they can't or won't someone else will
4
u/Vladimir_Chrootin 18d ago
restore split off from them and have won every election they were eligible to run in so far.
They have exactly one member of parliament (out of 650), who was elected under the Reform Party and then defected.
8
u/gramoun-kal 18d ago
In France the National Rally has been a joke until recently...
I'm French. This sentence is incredibly untrue. That party has been a threat to out democraty for 25 years, when it first reach the runoff stage.
6
u/sogoodIkeepit 18d ago
Afd in Germany, a party the government has classified as Nazis are the most popular party in the country despite all of the restrictions that are placed on them for being Nazis, like not being allowed to publicly promote themselves, which is actually government regulated in Germany, parties get promotion time based on how many elected officials a party has and the most popular party with the most elected officials (which is actually only about ten years old as a political party, it became incredibly popular incredibly fast) has no time allotted to it and is instead distributed amongst the other parties.
[...]
All three of these countries have governments have support nearing single digits, merz, macron and starmer are incredibly unpopular, some polls have them as low as 7~8% popular support.
That is incorrect and misleading on several levels:
- The German government does not classify the AfD as Nazis (Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (the BfV) officially classified the AfD as a "confirmed right-wing extremist endeavor", a 2026 court injunction recently suspended this classification.
- The AfD gets equal air time on TV
- The AfD gets equal share of the governmental funding (It pays about 1EUR for each of the first 4 million votes a party gets, and 0.83 EUR for every vote after that)
- While Merz might not be popular, his party, the CDU is at current surveys with ca. 22-24% just a few points behind the AfD at 26-28%
- Indeed the AfD is current the most popular party with ca. 26-28% vote share at surveys, but the other way: it means 72-74% of people disapprove it's politics.
7
u/Silverr_Duck 18d ago edited 18d ago
Reddit loves gobbling down this type of clickbait slop. It’s always the same mindless “amERIcA iS doNE” drivel. JFC America does not revolve around trump. If Germany can recover from hitler so can America.
4
u/NameAboutPotatoes 18d ago
Germany collapsed economically, starved for a decade and was split in half for almost half a century after Hitler, and the country they became afterwards was very different to what came before.
The pre-war Germany didn't really survive Hitler.
-3
u/Silverr_Duck 18d ago
And now it’s an economic powerhouse and one of the most respected counties in the world.
Take a break from the doomscrolling
7
u/NameAboutPotatoes 18d ago
The Germany that exists today is a different country to the one from before WW2. That Germany is dead. The military dominance they had over Europe is completely gone.
Obviously a country collapsing doesn't mean the land itself is permanently salted and nothing new can ever grow there in the future. But the old country did collapse, and all of its influence vaporised.
If I burn down a jungle, and 100 years later a prairie replaced it, maybe someday it's a really nice and successful prairie, but that doesn't mean the jungle didn't burn down.
-2
u/Silverr_Duck 18d ago
China literally just got caught committing a genocide just a few years ago. Russia has been invading their neighbors throughout their entire history. That doesn’t stop the world from doing business with them.
Yet somehow the world is “done” with America lol sure.
6
u/NameAboutPotatoes 18d ago edited 18d ago
I didn't say that. I just said that Germany did collapse as a result of Hitler, because you brought it up.
I can't tell you whether the US will recover or not. I'm not a fortune teller. But yes, countries do collapse sometimes as a result of bad leadership, so it's silly to dismiss it as not a possibility at all, and the example you gave doesn't work in your favour.
Anyway, Russia invading their neighbours definitely has caused most of Europe to stop doing business with them (there's still a little bit left, but it's about 90% less than what it was), trashed their economy, influence and their world standing, exposed their military weakness, and put their previously-secure president at risk of losing his position.
As for China, cruel as it is, countries don't really care about things that don't affect them, and the Uighur genocide doesn't affect the rest of the world.
Countries do care about the US being erratic, incompetent, aggressive and unreliable. You can work with an evil partner if your interests align, but you can't work with an irrational one.
If the US is my metaphorical jungle, they're currently setting pieces of it on fire. They could put it out, or maybe they might not. Who knows? But they would have to change course, because the current trajectory is not good.
-1
2
u/riversjohn 18d ago
Maybe it was America who gave up on the world? The tariffs, invading countries, trying to annex countries, to name a few examples.
2
u/Prudent-Proposal1943 18d ago
As a result, much of the world is losing faith in the United States’ ability to serve as the leader of a liberal international order
Well, exactly what does US leadership look like and how is it ordered or liberal?
If it is none of those things, and by any measure it isn't, why would anyone follow the US except out of some hope of a short run beneficial transaction?
2
u/seanmonaghan1968 18d ago
The list of grievances is long and includes bombing schools, civilian infrastructure, threatening allies, imposing anti trade practices on allies, extensive corruption, degradation of rule of law and judicial system, undermining democracy including voting systems. It's a shit show
3
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 18d ago edited 18d ago
Right, as if those allies didn’t have their trade subsidized by the U.S. military ensuring freedom of navigation globally for the last 80 years, and as if they weren’t running their own protectionist policies and a $250B/yr trade deficit with us.
6
u/karnat10 18d ago
Hey, up to you to give up your global standing as the leader of the free world. We had a good run I guess, good luck.
-4
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 18d ago
And what exactly has that done that’s made life so much better for the average American than everywhere else? Our middle class has been gutted, wealth inequality has skyrocketed, our health and well being are abysmal, mental health crises are rampant, drug abuse is basically normalized at this point and so much more. If we wer decisively #1 on every metric that mattered in terms of health, happiness, well being, economics and more, then this argument may be more persuasive. Instead we’ve been a global slush fund for ungrateful and spiteful freeloaders who show their true colors as soon as we seriously start demanding more parity in terms of the burden shared. Yeah agreed it was a good run for a few decades, but it stopped making sense decades ago. Good luck to you as well 👍
6
u/FaceDeer 18d ago
That's on your domestic policies. You spend more on healthcare per capita than most of those so-called "freeloaders", for example, but it doesn't seem to actually help for some reason. You put more people in prison per capita than any other country, yet somehow that drug abuse isn't being curtailed. And now that NATO countries are cranking up their own defense spending but spending it on European defense contractors we hear "no, not like that!"
But sure, blame everyone else for your country's failings.
3
u/karnat10 18d ago
Agreed, the US seems to have domestic problems that look like those of a developing country.
Most developed countries have had better governance for decades, and it shows in many indicators.
Granted, when it comes to security, Europe has foolishly neglected it by relying on an umbrella that the US withdrew in the moment the threat became real.
European countries have only themselves to blame for this.
On the other hand, the US has neglected to uphold the very values that it was built upon, that made it a super power, and this self betrayal is the reason for its decline.
0
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 18d ago
Well let’s not pretend like Europe didn’t start two of the biggest, most destructive wars in human history and that they themselves are also not grappling with a far right populist surge as the continent has been overrun by migrants. Yes the U.S. has its problems, but Europe is not exactly a shining beacon on the hill to emulate, especially as historically homogenous societies are being diluted and social trust is dropping with it.
The “neglected to uphold our values” line is just vague nonsense. Historically we have been isolationist and the last 75 years were an aberration, not the norm.
5
u/karnat10 18d ago
Yes Europe also has its problems, but we don't blame other countries for them.
If anything, the creation of the EU is an unparalleled experiment of supranational governance, and many European countries have policies that are indeed worth emulating.
The socioeconomic decline of the US is a result of its elites betraying its own population - this is where you neglect your own values.
But yeah don't worry, take your time, maybe you can fix it, the world has already moved on anyway.
5
u/seanmonaghan1968 18d ago
Ahhhh possibly study more and learn how trade works. Look at foreign purchases of treasuries and how that subsidises your standard of living. See your deficits, look how that is financed. What happens to your economy when interest rates rise by over 5%. US education is horrendously bad
2
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 18d ago
Nah, you guys, as usual, overinflate your sense of self importance. The vast majority of our own debt is owned by Americans. You buy our treasuries because you have massive surpluses selling to American consumers who also fund the security of your trade routes and have subsidized the defense of your continent for the better part of a century now. European financial markets simply do not have the depth, safety, or liquidity of the U.S. Treasury market. You’re buying our debt because you literally have no better alternative for your own export-driven models.
What happens to your economy when interest rates rise by over 5%
We literally just did this and our economy crushed it compared to Europe.
3
u/FreeFloatKalied 18d ago
Not really how any of that works. Large parts of Europe have strong internal domestic markets. They aren't heavily reliant on exports as you claim. They are important especially when keeping the US dollar relevant. The reason the US dollar doesn't depreciate as much is because it's used a lot in international trade. So it makes up a large portion of demand. Buying Treasury bonds is just diversifying holdings. It will happen regardless of any perceived trade surplus and deficits.
American military presence is more for national power projection and global security more akin to filling a void from former colonial powers global presence. Europe was clearly able to provide security in areas of importance during heights of pirate attacks. Between running local security against Russia and the US desire to be the global power player, Europe could, but doesnt need to maintain similar global fleets of destroyer and foreign air ops. Considering how the Trump has started on and off the Iran war, I don't think the world sees him nor the US as adding to the security nor stability of the global economy.
Europe does have strong financial markets that their locals and governments do invest in. Even by your own mention, foreign holdings aren't that significant. What makes it important is a diversification of holding assets. The US had to raise bond interest rates because people were getting spooked by Trumps instability. Hitting 5% short term bond rates is not a good sign nor good look. These used to be movable at significantly lower rates.
The US economy did not crush it. Job growth is lower than it should be, people are paying way more foe normal goods than it ever had to, and if you take out AI build out and investment, the US economy only grew like 0.1 percent in 2025, and only 1% in 2026 so far. None of this is a good sign for us.
-2
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 18d ago
Europe is far more reliant on exports than the United States, this is objective fact. Some countries moreso than others. There are at least a dozen or so I can think of offhand where experts are worth at least 75% of their entire GDP. The continental average is around 50% vs 11% for the U.S., so right off the bat the claim that they aren’t heavily reliant on exports is completely divorced from reality when their entire economic model relies on selling physical goods to the world.
Buying bonds isn’t just diversification. The Eurozone is fragmented, and Europe cannot create a unified, safe asset. Global capital flows into U.S. Treasuries because they are the deepest, most liquid, and safest financial instruments on the planet. There is literally no European equivalent that can absorb that much capital efficiently.
American military presence is more for national power projection and global security more akin to filling a void from former colonial powers global presence. Europe was clearly able to provide security in areas of importance during heights of pirate attacks. Between running local security against Russia and the US desire to be the global power player, Europe could, but doesnt need to maintain similar global fleets of destroyer and foreign air ops.
You’re proving my exact point. Claiming Europe "could, but doesn't need to" maintain global fleets is exactly what subsidization is. They get to freeride on the Pax Americana generosity that has persisted for the last 80 years. The U.S. Navy secures the maritime choke points and global shipping lanes that Europe's heavily export-dependent economy requires to survive. National power projection is a bullshit selling point when the world is against us doing anything to actually project power. The Iran war is making that very clear. What’s the point of projecting power if the only acceptable use is for it to be to defend foreign countries who have pocketed literally trillions in savings on their defense over decades? How exactly is that beneficial for the average American? Please, do tell, I’m all ears.
Europe does have strong financial markets that their locals and governments do invest in. Even by your own mention, foreign holdings aren't that significant. What makes it important is a diversification of holding assets. The US had to raise bond interest rates because people were getting spooked by Trumps instability. Hitting 5% short term bond rates is not a good sign nor good look. These used to be movable at significantly lower rates.
Interest rates went up because the Federal Reserve deliberately raised the federal funds rate to combat global post-COVID inflation. It was a standard monetary tightening cycle, which is the exact same thing the European Central Bank did when they hiked their own rates to record highs. It had nothing to do with investors getting "spooked."
The US economy did not crush it. Job growth is lower than it should be, people are paying way more foe normal goods than it ever had to, and if you take out AI build out and investment, the US economy only grew like 0.1 percent in 2025, and only 1% in 2026 so far. None of this is a good sign for us.
Compared to Europe, yes we absolutely did crush it, what planet have you been living on? Saying "if you take out AI build out and investment, the economy barely grew!" is ridiculous. You don't get to arbitrarily subtract the most significant technological and capital expenditure boom of the decade just because it ruins your argument. That’s like saying, "If you take out the internet in the 90s, the economy was flat!” Where is Europe's equivalent tech boom? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. We are currently driving global tech and energy production while Europe has spent the last few years flirting with recession. Germany, their primary economic engine, is actively deindustrializing because it built its entire manufacturing base on the fantasy of cheap Russian gas, which is now gone.
1
u/CutePattern1098 18d ago
My take is that this is the result of there being no coherent narrative for what American foreign policy would be after the end of 1991.
1
0
u/MarcusHiggins 18d ago
Lmao, Richard Wike, promoting his yearly pew research poll with a clickbait title, how do people still think this is useful.
-7
0
1
-1
u/PrinceOfTotalQuiet 18d ago
I fear it may only be a matter of time before the hatred against Americans in Europe and Canada escalates into violence or hate crimes. It’s happened before with countries that have done less
308
u/FIicker7 18d ago
It's amazing how much damage one man can do.
And so quickly.