I've been listening to various podcasts and reading quite a few articles about the recent American elections. Mostly Dutch sources, actually, from journalists and economists who take the time to dig a little deeper into what's happening, rather than simply repeating the mainstream news and headlines.
It's interesting to hear their take on what happened in the US. I'm from the Netherlands, as you probably know, and I'd genuinely welcome Americans to react to this post. Are the journalists and economists I follow in my own country presenting an accurate picture of how Americans themselves see these elections? And were the topics they highlight actually the main issues for American voters?
What really mattered to American voters?
From a European perspective, there's always a hope that American elections are about more than just domestic affairs. Of course, the economy, internal politics, laws and everything happening within the US matter. But we also tend to look at the international picture. The wars the US is involved in, for example. In this case, the Iran war, which Trump more or less started together with Israel, his friendly relationship with Putin and his opposition to Ukraine.
According to the analysts I've been following, these international issues weren't really major topics in the elections. Perhaps their consequences were, such as rising oil prices and the fact that filling up your car has become considerably more expensive. That certainly seems to have been one of the issues influencing voters in the elections for the House and Senate.
Something else surprised me. We haven't heard nearly as much about Trump's self-enrichment, or that of his family and probably some of his friends, over the past two years. The way laws and regulations have apparently been manipulated to benefit those close to him. I always wondered: don't American voters see what's happening here? Apparently, this has become a much more relevant topic this time around.
The Democrats won convincingly, although I understand that the quality of some Republican candidates played a part as well. In several states, their opponents simply weren't particularly strong candidates. Some were apparently handpicked by Trump, which doesn't necessarily mean they were the best people for the job. That obviously makes it easier for the Democrats to win.
Another interesting development is that Democrats won in at least four states with candidates whose backgrounds and profiles seem to go against much of what Trump and the MAGA movement stand for. Among them were a candidate of colour, a gay candidate and two others who don't exactly fit the traditional Republican picture, including someone with a Muslim background.
And then there were some surprises in traditionally Republican territory, with Democrats making gains in places you wouldn't necessarily expect. Even Texas featured in the discussion.
In light of upcomign Halloween I was able to shoot this picture this morning. Right at the center. A black ghost and a raven. In fact: just shadows, making me wonder if shadows are simply just shadows?
Data centres: the next political battlefield?
One thing that made me smile was Elon Musk's comment about building data centres in space. Yes, extraterrestrial data centres! It sounds rather ridiculous at first, but perhaps there's more to it than just another Musk statement.
He's essentially suggesting that Democrats will oppose the construction of new data centres. But from what I understand, the federal government isn't necessarily the main obstacle. Much of the resistance is happening at state and local level.
People increasingly don't want these enormous data centres built in their own backyards. And I suspect this has very little to do with being Republican or Democrat. It's more about practical concerns. Energy is becoming more expensive, electricity grids aren't necessarily equipped to handle the additional demand, and local residents are worried that they'll end up paying the price. Nobody particularly wants a massive industrial-looking building next door if it also means higher energy bills.
We see exactly the same discussion in the Netherlands. Local communities don't necessarily welcome a new data centre in their village or city, even though governments are looking at what the country will need in the future.
And that's where things get interesting. We all know technological advancement isn't going to stop. AI needs enormous amounts of computing power, which means more chips, more electricity and, inevitably, many more data centres.
Whether the companies currently investing billions in AI will all become profitable is another discussion. Personally, I believe this is largely a matter of timing and how quickly the technology develops. We are going to need considerably more infrastructure, and all of it needs to be built somewhere.
Some projects in the Netherlands have already been blocked, while others have gone ahead. I understand the concerns of local residents, but at some point we also need to recognise that this infrastructure is going to be essential for the future.
The question isn't really whether we need it. It's where we're going to build it.
Billionaire taxes and the economy
Another interesting observation from the American elections concerns the billionaire tax in California. Apparently, researchers looked at the largest cities and counties and compared the voting results.
The outcome was quite surprising. The poorer counties, with a higher proportion of less-educated residents, had fewer people voting in favour of billionaire taxes. The wealthier counties, with generally more highly educated populations, showed considerably more support.
That's an interesting contrast, to say the least.
Of course, the economy itself remains another major issue. Inflation continues to be a concern, and now interest rates are also increasing. I can imagine this has a significant impact on how people vote, although I'd be interested to hear from Americans whether this is actually how things are perceived on the ground.
What's perhaps even more interesting is that, according to the analysts I follow, many of the international issues didn't play a particularly significant role. All the trade tariffs and the back-and-forth Trump created, his position on Ukraine, his relationship with Putin and his attitude towards China apparently weren't decisive topics for many voters.
That's quite different from what we tend to see in several European countries.
Europe is starting to think differently
In Europe, elections are generally about more than domestic politics as well. In the Netherlands, for example, discussions about our position within the European Union and our relationship with the rest of the world are very much part of the political agenda.
Our most recent general elections were, in my view, partly a reflection of this changing attitude. One of the important themes was making Europe more self-reliant and reducing our dependence on other parts of the world, particularly China and the US.
At the same time, we remain a trading nation. The Netherlands is a small country, and much of our wealth has historically come from international trade. That's deeply embedded in our culture. We understand that we need an open, largely free global economy, and that means continuing to trade with China, the US, Latin America, Asia and plenty of other countries.
But there's a difference between trading with other nations and being dependent on them.
Trump's rather unpredictable approach to international trade has made that distinction painfully obvious. Interestingly, the consequences for the Netherlands haven't necessarily been as bad as some might have expected. We're simply not as dependent on the US for physical goods as we might be in other areas.
Digital infrastructure is a completely different story.
Google, Microsoft, Amazon (AWS and Azure), Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud are major suppliers of the technology used by companies, governments and organisations throughout Europe. That's an enormous dependency on American technology.
But things are changing. The discussion about digital sovereignty started a year or two ago, and it's now gaining serious momentum. European alternatives are being developed left and right, and more and more companies are looking at reducing their dependence on American cloud providers.
I think this is a development that will continue regardless of who wins the next American general election in two years' time. Even if the US elects a moderate Democrat, a more traditional Republican or somebody in between, the direction in Europe has already been set.
We want to build the technology we need ourselves. Not necessarily everything, because that's probably unrealistic, but enough to have genuine alternatives. If Plan A depends on overseas technology, we want a Plan B that doesn't necessarily have the same dependency.
And honestly, I personally have to thank Trump for accelerating this process. I've felt for quite some time that Europe had become too dependent on a handful of much larger nations. That creates a situation in which they have considerable influence over us, while we often have little choice but to follow their lead.
I suspect that when we look back ten or twenty years from now, we'll see that this period marked a major turning point in Europe's technological independence.
Nobody is above the law
Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in the US over the coming months and years, both domestically and internationally. I genuinely hope things work out well for American citizens, or at least that these elections lead to something better. We'll see where things stand when the next general elections come around.
Regardless of politics, I wish prosperity to everyone, wherever they happen to live. Even the Russians. That doesn't mean I can agree with what their leadership is doing, obviously. But leadership in many countries makes questionable decisions. Sometimes with good intentions and the belief that they're doing what's best for the future, sometimes to benefit themselves, their political party or their friends.
One thing I do believe is that nobody should be above the law. It doesn't matter how powerful you are or how high your moral standards might be. Nobody is immune to making decisions that benefit themselves rather than society as a whole.
Corruption exists everywhere. Even in countries where morality and democratic standards are exceptionally high, you'll still find people who abuse their positions in one way or another. Some countries simply have better systems for dealing with it. They have stronger democratic institutions and mechanisms that make it possible to remove people who abuse their power. In other countries, getting rid of the bad actors takes considerably more effort, time and energy.
And, of course, it's not simply a matter of dividing everyone into good and bad people. Most of us are somewhere in between. People can do good things while also making questionable decisions. That's human nature, I suppose.
Ultimately, I just hope that the people in positions of power, in every country around the world, are mostly the good actors. Even if they occasionally get things wrong.
I'm genuinely curious to see how all of this develops. And I'd really like to hear from those of you who follow American politics more closely.
Have I got the picture of these elections right? Are the Dutch journalists and economists I follow giving me an accurate impression of what's happening in the US? Or am I completely off track here?
Feel free to correct me, challenge my understanding or tell me I'm talking nonsense. That's exactly why I'm sharing these thoughts here.