Europe is trapped by its way of thinking about ethics. Everyone knows the enlightening distinction made by Max Weber between ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility. The first sticks to moral principles while the second focuses on the effects of action. Thus, Munich pacifism was part of the ethic of conviction and Churchillian military force was part of the ethic of responsibility. Both aimed for peace but the first refused to see reality where the second was consequentialist. The judgment of History was final.
Faced with most contemporary global challenges – technological, geopolitical, climatic, etc. – the European Union has unfortunately chosen the camp of the ethics of conviction and we can only hope that it revises this way of seeing in an accelerated manner. the world by January 20, the date of Donald Trump’s inauguration in the White House.
Throughout the American presidential campaign, 90% of European political leaders bowed to the myth of the strong man “who will save the world” – especially the far right -, reassured cheaply – “He will not what he says” – or, more often than not, contented themselves with moral judgments – “How vulgar!” Regarding Elon Musk’s support for the German AfD or the British far right, it is exactly the same moral behavior that prevails, as if this posture could have any effect. Few officials have been able to carry out intellectual reflection on the consequences of Trump’s election on European interests and on the optimal way to respond to this new challenge.
Trumpian principles are simple
However, the facts of the problem are not so complex, because the principles which should govern Trump’s policy are simple and clear: first, the United States will support its allies less militarily, even if it means partially disengaging from NATO; second, Trump wants to considerably accelerate the American reindustrialization successfully initiated by the Biden administration with the Inflation Reduction Act. Which will involve tax cuts and massive deregulation. Third, the United States will use protectionist weapons to obtain what they want from third countries, on almost all subjects: international trade, use of the dollar, immigration control, etc.
Concerning the first subject, the response to be provided by the European Union essentially involves national policies. To protect itself, each country must quickly converge its military spending towards 3% of GDP – France is at 2%. Poland, nuclear-equipped, and well placed, so to speak, to grasp the nature of the Russian threat, can give its neighbors instructions. With one important nuance: Europe must push Trump to his limits. If the United States reduces its military support, European countries must have the courage to equip themselves more and more with non-American equipment, even if it means facing Trumpian verbal fury. This act of courage is a necessity for our strategic autonomy, and it would be excellent news for the French defense sector.
A cultural shift in Europe
On the second subject, the EU must make a cultural shift by abandoning its normative passion and putting all its strength into the development of cheap low-carbon energy – nuclear power in particular –, economic liberalization and simplification. It is a real paradigm shift for our hyperprotected and still hyperprotective continent, but it is the sine qua non condition if we do not want what remains of our industrial base to disappear to the United States in the coming years.
There remains the reaction to Trumpian protectionism. Taxes on imports are in reality taxes on consumers and all economic literature agrees to emphasize that protectionism backfires. ultimately against its author. Responding to American protectionism with European protectionism would be an offense against our fellow citizens. On this subject, Europe must remain calm and not give in to the provocations of our American friends. As it turns out, his DNA makes him quite capable of it.
Nicolas Bouzou, economist and essayist, is director of the consulting firm Astères
.