Introduction

Deselecting Donald Trump as President of the United States ensures that the veils are settling in relation to possible future political developments. As a reason for this is the fact, that President-elect Joe Biden stands for a more stable, accountable, and less ambiguous politics than Trump. Nevertheless, with all the euphoria in the news and social media, there will be no more back to the times before Trump. For it, the last four years the world has changed in many ways. Political and socio-economic structures in global, regional, and local perspective have been dropped by the Trump Administration and have left a power vacuum that was filled in by other actors and alternative structures. Boosted by Covid-19, the speed of unwanted development pathways cannot be stopped abruptly and the Western world has been imposed a passive role. However, and this is the special thing about our time (and this window of opportunities will close in the foreseeable future), the network of relationships and feedback loops, starting at the local national level and ending with effects that transcend national borders, is so complex and currently dynamic that there is still an opportunity consists of making big things happen with small decisions.

Therefore, the time has come to get an overview of current political scenarios. Here, the starting point for our observations should always be political and socio-economic developments, which have charisma on other events in the world. This is not to say that the United States are the centre of the world. Quite the contrary. But, on the one hand, it illustrates in an appropriate manner the meaning, the loss of meaning and the challenges that not only the Western world has to face. On the other hand, it offers approaches to solutions and ways to meet the challenges and preserve your own identity.

Although Donald Trump is continuing his destructive work with increasing speed, future thoughts make sense again because they give people a vision and an idea of the future, which they will be able to design or that they should be prepared for.

Albeit the day will come when Trump must move out of the White House, if he wants or not, whether voluntarily or by force, he is not the cause of many undesirable developments over the past four years. Much more he is the symptom of a development process and at the same time an intensifying and accelerating element of this process, which was ultimately stopped by a tiny virus in combination with systemic counter movements against developments for which Trump is a symptom.

Donald Trump or rather those aspects for which he stands, whichever he has firmly implemented in the social and political systems of the world through his personality, will not disappear after the 20th of January, twelve o’clock at noon. They will be still there for years, whether or not he will run again as a presidential candidate in 2024. To clarify and to illustrate these effects, we first take a detailed look at the United States of America. Then the lines of sight turn towards Europe with a focus on Great Britain, Germany, and Russia and of course China. The observations are supplemented by looking at further selected countries like Turkey and Brazil and by editing country regions like the Caucasus, the Middle East, and Central Asia.  

Part 1: Lessons From An Election & Beyond

To understand the future, it is essential to consult the past and the present and it is necessary to understand, that issues and factual connections are correlated across several levels as in a multidimensional space. Internalizing these principles in a remarkable way, one has to follow the statements by the French publicist, politician, and philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, who is ranked as one of the first to comprehend the mechanisms of democracy when looking at political processes in America in the early 19^th century. Thus, Tocqueville is our companion and adviser in one. After all, he cannot be blamed for being biased about the candidates nowadays.

A Tocquevillian View on Presidential Elections

The four-year cycle of presidential elections was described by Tocqueville as a revolution “in the name of the law” and this revolution temporarily changes people, society, and the president. “Long before the appointed day arrives, the election becomes the greatest and, as it were, the only matter which occupies people’s mind; every possible phoney passion that the imagination can conceive in a contented and peaceful country comes out into the light of day. The President, for his part, is absorbed in the task of defending himself. He governs no longer in the interests of the state but out of concern for his re-election. He bows before the majority and often, instead of checking their passions as his duty requires, he hastens to anticipate their whims. As the election draws near, intrigues multiply and turmoil spreads. Citizens divide up between several camps each of which adopts the name of its candidate. The whole nation descends into a feverish state; the election becomes the daily theme of newspapers, the subject of private conversations, the object of every manoeuvre and every thought, the only concern of the present moment.” Here it should be emphasized again, that his words are about 200 years old. If you read these lines, they could also be written by a journalist for a newspaper yesterday. Alexis de Tocqueville describes a typical American ritual that takes place every four years and since over 200 years. You might think because of actual political developments, that after elections the population is extremely divided and that as a result, everyday political life could only slowly get going again. Not even close. “It is true that as soon as the result has been announced, this passion is dispelled, all returns to calm, and the river which momentarily overflowed its banks returns peacefully to its bed. But should we not find it astonishing that such a storm should have arisen in the first place?” Once again, this is a typical American ritual, every four years again, since over 200 years. And there is a symbol, a ritual, which not only ensures that there are no delays in government work, but also makes it clear that the election campaigns are over. To outsiders it may seem strange, uncomfortable, and exaggerated, but this is a special peculiarity of a nation that has been the leading world power in the last few decades. And there is a kind another kind of ritual or system preserving ceremony. The period between the election of a new president and his swearing-in in front of the capitol is called transition period. No matter how strong the contrasts between the candidates was, no matter how far apart they were politically or ideologically, the so-called landing teams of the new president are involved in everyday work and in briefings so that the political-administrative system does not come to a standstill. It became also a tradition that the president personally congratulated his successor on his election, invited him with his wife to dinner in the White House and left a letter with some personal words on the desk, that were not intended for the public. All these symbolic gestures only make it clear that power within a democracy is only borrowed for a short period of time and that one is only a part of democracy. Democracy and what it stands for comes first. Tocqueville described in his book, that has become a classic, De la démocratie en Amérique  the following scene: “As the election draws near, the head of the executive powers thinks only to the ensuing battle; his future has gone; he can undertake nothing and only feebly prosecutes what someone else will possibly complete. “I am so near the moment of retirement,” wrote President Jefferson on 21 January 1809 (six weeks before the election), that I take no part in affairs beyond the expression of an opinion. I think it is fair that my successor should now originate those measures of which he will be charged with execution and responsibility…”.” The sense of democracy and the will to represent it also illustrates another historical fact. The first president, George Washington, had renounced a third term, which was kept as a tradition by almost all his successors. Only Theodore Roosevelt, who ran (unsuccessfully) for a third term in 1912, and Franklin D. Roosevelt did not follow this tradition during World War II.

Two Sides of A Story

What kind of certification can the United States be given? What do the above statements tell us? Well, let us call it a triad. The basic social ideology is highly competitive, which is, however, balanced by a strong tendency towards fairness and capped by an overarching democratic ideology.

To be fair: this is only one part of the story!

In its time Tocqueville met President Andrew Jackson. He was the 7^th President of the United States and together with Martin van Buren (senator of New York) he founded the US Democratic Party, which had its origins in a forerunner party founded by Thomas Jefferson (3^rd President of US). There are two things to know about the Democrats. First, it was the first strictly organized people’s party in the world. Second, while the Democrats were initially the more conservative of the parties, at the beginning of the 20^th century it developed into an ideologically incoherent alliance of progressive politicians in the big cities of the north, who mainly addressed workers and immigrants, and of conservative southerners who defended the existing order. But let us come back to the 7^th President Andrew Jackson. The career soldier Jackson was only moderately educated, spoke simple to simplistic, if not far from fact in the name of the `Common Man´ he mocked the establishment of the North. In 1828 and four years later, Jackson won the elections mainly in the (at the time) West and in the South. In short: a populist avant la lettre and an ancestor in the spirit of current incumbent Donald Trump. It is therefore not necessarily uncommon for a President to behave cautiously, which leads the commentators to speak of the demise of the democracy. The question is rather whether this behaviour is established as a political variant in the democratic system in the long term and to what extent the population behaves towards it. If it accepts this change itself or does it stand up for the usual democratic order. Among other things, the stability of democracy depends on the insight of the people with regard to democracy and their own role within it. Alexis de Tocqueville introduces the concept of morals into the discussion, which form a protective wall against tyranny and dictatorship.

Merges - The MSSK-Complex

Indeed, there is a striking difference between the time of Jackson and that of Trump. To put it cautiously, while Jackson can be described as a kind of accident at work, Trump is the symptom of a political development that began decades ago and has broken through today. Three major change processes have been started under the Nixon administration. First, on July 15 in 1971, the American President Richard Nixon broke off diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (now Taiwan) and established relations with the People's Republic of China. One month later, on August 15, 1971, he unilaterally and single-handedly announced the end of the Bretton Woods system (abolition of convertibility into gold). Two aspects were decisive for this: financial burdens from the Vietnam war, and speculation of one's own financial economy against the dollar. The result was the establishment of a flexible exchange rate system. This was not only the breaking of a tacit consensus between industry, politics, and the population, which valued the value of human work more than financial profit; by the way, under President Ronald Reagan (40^th President of the USA) this process was strengthened and intensified. In other words, this was the birth of hyper-capitalism and the beginning of the merging of the capitalistic economic system of the West with the political system of China, which should enable China to become the dominant economic power in 2020.

Second, let us call it MSSK (Manafort Stone Schmitt Kahneman) complex. To be clear, except for the first two, they did not want to work or were not able to work together. Likewise, it would be wrong to claim that Kahneman can ever be brought into personal or professional contact with the other three people. Rather, the first two uses the findings of the latter two. However, it would  help to understand this merging of thoughts and people, a development that continues to this day, and to understand a little bit the political processes in the United States and in the rest of the world.

Let us start with Carl Schmitt. Schmitt was a German jurist, political theorist, and prominent member of the Nazi Party. Schmitt wrote extensively about the effective wielding of political power. A conservative theorist, he is noted as a critic of parliamentary democracy, liberalism, and cosmopolitanism, and his work has been a major influence on subsequent political theory, legal theory, continental philosophy, and political theology, but its value and significance are controversial, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with Nazism. According to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, "Schmitt was an acute observer and analyst of the weaknesses of liberal constitutionalism and liberal cosmopolitanism. But there can be little doubt that his preferred cure turned out to be infinitely worse than the disease." His main work is entitled The Concept of the Political and provides a definition of the political: the political includes the fight, which can also be fought physically and to the point of death. (Only as an interjection: How often do politicians use the word fight or synonym for it, anywhere in the world.)

Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli psychologist and economist notable for his work on the psychology of judgment and decision-making, as well as behavioural economics, for which he was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. His empirical findings challenge the assumption of human rationality prevailing in modern economic theory. He shaped the term cognitive bias or cognitive illusions. It is a collective term in cognitive psychology for systematic erroneous tendencies in perceiving, remembering, thinking, and judging. They mostly remain unconscious and are based on cognitive heuristics (compare prejudice). A simple summary, which were published in connection with behavioural economics, could be as follows: People often make decisions based on a simple, quick, and stable rule of thumb, not just an analysis of all possibilities or an accurate calculation of various probabilities; the way in which a problem or a decision is presented influences the action of the decider.

Paul Manafort and Roger Stone not only connects a professional collaboration, but also an approach that is to be viewed more critically, if not even rejected. People like Stephen Bannon or Robert Mercer or the Breitbart News Network are still part of their spell. Manafort and Stone are both American lobbyists and political advisers, both accompany almost all republican presidents and presidential candidates on their political path, and both have been convicted of breaking the law in American courts. In 1980 they founded a lobbing firm based in Washington, D.C. named Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly. Manafort stood out for the fact that he represented clients included dictators like Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines) and Siad Barre (Somalia). Roger Stone was all too keen to emphasize that the point is not about truthful or rule-compliant communication and politics, but about achieving goals. Any means are right, up to and including manipulation or inciting of masses.

Third, decline in education in the United States (this process takes place to varying degrees in almost all Western countries). Initially, let us remind you of a definition of education, which could be as follows: education is the acquisition of means with which one can explain the world to oneself. Michio Kaku is one of the most famous physicists in the USA. His research area is theoretical physics, more precisely string theory. He is mainly known for his popular scientific contributions on theoretical-physical topics. However, this does not exclude the fact that he is a layman in other special questions of the natural and social sciences and can also make completely stupid explanations. The following comment was given by him: “The US has the worst education system of anything I know. The level of knowledge of our graduates is lower than in third world countries. Why hasn't the US scientific elite collapsed yet? We are creating a generation of idiots - watch our television and reality shows. And I will tell you: America has a secret weapon, and it is called the Foreign Scientist Visa N-18. Forget the gulag, forget the Silicon Valley - it was not the Americans who did all this, but the immigrants. The USA sucks the best minds from all over the world - India, China, Russia. And we ourselves only create idiots.” if one is able to acquire foreign knowledge and know-how, it becomes clear why the path to education in America is made more difficult by high educational fees, poor school equipment and a lack of teacher qualifications.

Let us bring the above statements together to form an overall statement. Please note that although developments build on one another, many developments also run in parallel and are mutually dependent and influencing one another. So, what are the main currents: hyper capitalism with all its negative consequences and the promise of happiness through consumption. A political-philosophical ideology to justify why struggle and the disregard of norms and customs make sense. These facts are received by politically active actors who are not elected by the people and who have had a significant influence on day-to-day political affairs. An unwholesome connection between politics and economics; represented here by Robert Mercer.

We will briefly return to Tocqueville here, because with his statements he designed a picture of the future. The following words he wrote down in a letter to the French deputy to the National Assembly: "While all the efforts of political economy today seem materialistic, I want ... to highlight the least materialistic side of this science ... emotions in wealth and happiness". And thus, the economy addresses an aspect that liberal democracy does not recognize. namely, one of the main characteristics of liberalism is its rationality. Nixon used this argument in making his decisions and often reiterated that his decisions were rational. Furthermore, Tocqueville warned the friends of democracy: “However, this is the direction in which the friends of democracy should constantly fix their anxious gaze; for if ever aristocracy and the permanent inequality of social conditions were to infiltrate the world once again, it is predictable that this is the door by which they would enter.” Along with the love of prosperity and goods, man “becomes more skilled every day, but less inventive, and it can be said that the more he perfects himself as a worker, the more he becomes more perfect as a worker”. In the end he even loses the general ability to deal mentally with the work or do mentally work at all. The dependence on the new aristocracy has been established from this point on to satisfy the love of prosperity. Not only does a new aristocratic society emerge within society which no longer has any connections to the workers, they also do not have to bear the consequences of their own actions. The new aristocracy, which Tocqueville also calls the money industry, is not concerned with power:  "... it does not want to rule at all, but rather use it [the workers or people]". “In my opinion, taken as a whole, this industrial aristocracy that rises before our eyes is one of the most enduring on earth; but at the same time one of the most limited and harmless”. It is harmless because, it does not want power and domination directly, but indirectly destroys the foundations of democracy through the spiritual annihilation of people. Democracy is thus hollowed out and must collapse, freedom in any sense is not achieved, since the people betray themselves, their concerns and general morality and unconsciously force themselves to give up. “In an aristocratic society” - the industrial society is aristocratic - “the kind of morality that encourages the individual to make great sacrifices is presented as a noble and inspiring ideal. The fact that people have their own economic interests and usually try to implement them is not openly recognized but happens in secret” said Swedberg. Mayer describes this as a plutocratic industrial despotism with soulless slaves of machines (people).