„People want faster solutions“

Interview by Julia Stanton 

In your book “Failure”, which was published in 2019, you argue that failure is an integral part of Western capitalist systems. You examine that this is dealt with by repeatedly deflecting crises and uncertainties. When your book came out, certain trends such as the shift to the right and increasing protectionism in the West were not yet as pronounced as they are today. What do you think about failure in 2025?

Today I think about the question of failure mostly in terms of the failure of democracy. There seems to be what I call „democracy fatigue”. I think that many people, especially in liberal democracies that are in the West, are tired of the waiting that liberal democracy requires. They want faster solutions. The new populists offer them, whether they can deliver or not. Trump's recent flood of executive orders is signaling exactly  that: no waiting. We'll take over Greenland, we'll take over the Panama Canal, we'll kick out illegal immigrants, we'll leave the Paris Climate Agreements. But liberal democracy requires patience. Many processes take years to take effect and then don't always work.

But many of Trump's policies seem to contradict the interests of his own voters. Yet, his support remains strong. Why?

During his election campaign, Trump placed a lot of emphasis on the economy, but now this is no longer the focus. He is obsessed with tariffs and global trade, but that is all. What keeps Trump in power now is a culture war. People love his anti-attitude when it comes to diversity. He has made racialized identities and foreign nations the enemy. China, migrants, international organizations are portrayed as a threat to American strength. This is a classic scapegoating strategy: creating an external “them” to distract from internal inequalities. The real divide, of course, is between a handful of ultra-rich elites and everyone else. To disguise this, Trump is staging a different conflict. Therefore, the choice of his cabinet and advisors, a large proportion of whom are billionaires with interests other than those of the working class, is not seen as a problem. There is also the belief that these are the people who make a difference. They are fighters, heroes and so on. That they are perceived this way is due to American capitalism, where people with a lot of money are virtually worshipped.

"I think that many people, especially in liberal democracies that are in the West, are tired of the waiting that liberal democracy requires"

Globalization still guarantees a lot of wealth for people in the US. So how has this become the major enemy?  

This can be seen in the example of USAID, the US Agency for International Development: most people didn't know what USAID was at all, but suddenly Trump is making people think about it and presenting it as if it were a charity organization that gives money away to the world's poor. To him, that's a waste. What's interesting is that Trump wants to be a man of global influence at the same time. But on his own terms. With his idea of turning Gaza into a resort, he has reached an extraordinary level of casino capitalism. Trmup wants the world to be his sandbox.

A similar anti-globalization sentiment is spreading across Europe, particularly with growing Euroscepticism. What is causing this? 

In the US, the fear centers on immigration from Latin America. In Europe, it is mainly about Islam. Across the continent, from Norway to Italy, the fear of migration is closely linked to the historical perception that European culture is the opposite of Islam. There is also an economic dimension. The post-communist promise was that capitalism would bring prosperity for all. This has not materialized. Many European economies are stagnating and are struggling to create prosperity. At the same time, we have lost global competitiveness, especially in the field of technology. The question is no longer which countries are moving to the right, but which are the exceptions.

"Trmup wants the world to be his sandbox"

So what are the exceptions?

Germany stands out, largely because of its relative economic stability. I think it still has got a high degree of potential for developing an alternative way to use the fact that it is still quite wealthy. There is more openness here to changes than in the US. If people said there, we are going to change all your radiators and so on there would be a revolution. But here people are willing to entertain those things. And that gives me hope that there is a sense of a social purpose, planetary purpose, an economic purpose that is shared and which has nothing to do with immigration or anything. It has to do with livability. But still, I will admit that these are slender straws on which to build an alternative vision. 

Compared to 2016, when Trump was first elected, resistance against this right wing shift feels much weaker, in Europe and in the US. What has happened ? 

In the U.S., Congress is meant to be an independent branch of government, but it has largely fallen in line. Courts attempt to push back, but Trump’s influence over the Supreme Court is immense.

Internationally, the old strategy of mocking him, Merkel raising an eyebrow for example, no longer works. He holds too much power. He also has a lot of ideological allies across Europe, from Orban to Meloni.

Many people I know are struggling with the question of where an alternative can come from that leads away from the right. There is a sense of frustration at the lack of truly inspiring ideas.

The future is an important concept you have investigated in your work. How can we still guarantee a good future? 

There are many things that could be mentioned here, but I will focus on education and on Germany because I live here now: In Germany, new technologies are in a different world to the one that is generally dealt with in the education system. In New York, for example, every second university invests massively in game design. But if you look at Berlin, who teaches game design there? I'm not saying that the entire German budget should go into game development. But it seems important to me that the German education system, from early childhood to higher education, should be better adapted to today's world. Children under the age of 15 are already part of this new world, but the system that surrounds them is part of the old world. When I think of my own son, who is now ten years old and very enthusiastic about his iPad, games and their design, it seems like there is no room for his interests. The prevailing opinion seems to be that it's all commercial, that everyone just wants to be a YouTuber. Sure, maybe a lot of people want to become YouTubers, but you need enormous skills for that:  For example, you have to learn programming and be familiar with robotics. I'm not saying that everyone should do these things, but I think there should be a certain change in mentality about the future. We should recognize that the generation that is under 15 today will hopefully help shape a very different world than the one of the 19th and 20th century. And that is happening right now. The question is, where will Germany stand in the process?