The Uni­ted Sta­tes was a de­moc­ra­cy, where Ame­ri­cans tre­a­ted each ot­her with res­pect un­der laws that ap­p­lied equ­al­ly to eve­ry­o­ne via go­vern­ment ins­ti­tu­ti­ons de­sig­ned to ba­lan­ce eve­ry­o­ne’s in­te­rests.

The way we were

That’s a so­mew­hat ele­men­ta­ry desc­rip­ti­on, and things got more comp­lex in real life, but it was a good star­ting point to desc­ri­be ba­sic Ame­ri­can po­li­ti­cal va­lu­es. Those core va­lu­es then evol­ved in­to more ad­van­ced con­cepts that sha­ped Ame­ri­ca’s in­te­rac­ti­on with ot­her na­ti­ons. Such hig­her-le­vel va­lu­es, in turn, hel­ped cre­a­te U.S. al­li­an­ces with many na­ti­ons inc­lu­ding Fin­land. As po­li­ti­cal scien­tist, con­sul­tant and aut­hor Ian Brem­mer exp­lai­ned in a TED Talk bro­ad­cast af­ter the re­cent U.S. elec­ti­ons:  

“A lot of al­lies of the Uni­ted Sta­tes around the world are al­lies be­cau­se they have sha­red in­te­rests but al­so be­cau­se they per­cei­ve that they have sha­red va­lu­es.
Those va­lu­es inc­lu­de com­mit­ment to de­moc­ra­cy and rule of law and the pro­mo­ti­on of de­moc­ra­cy and rule of law around the world. Com­mit­ment to a mul­ti­la­te­ral arc­hi­tec­tu­re where norms and va­lu­es are lar­ge­ly ag­reed to. Col­lec­ti­ve se­cu­ri­ty among al­lies and, to the ex­tent pos­sib­le glo­bal­ly, free trade and mar­ket ac­cess through mul­ti­la­te­ral ag­ree­ments….” 

That’s what I thought too. I’ve thought that throug­hout my 40+ ye­ar ca­reer as a la­wy­er in Was­hing­ton DC exp­lai­ning Ame­ri­can va­lu­es – and Ame­ri­can laws ba­sed on those va­lu­es – to Fin­nish com­pa­nies doing bu­si­ness in the USA. Eve­ry Finn I know, es­pe­ci­al­ly the mem­bers of SAM Suo­mi and re­a­ders of SAM Ma­ga­zi­ne, al­so be­lie­ved that those were real Ame­ri­can va­lu­es.

I was wrong. We were all wrong.  
The elec­ti­on of Do­nald Trump as the next U.S. Pre­si­dent with a Re­pub­li­can Cong­ress shows how wrong we were, or at le­ast how wrong we are now. To quo­te Mary Trump, a pro­fes­si­o­nal psyc­ho­lo­gist, the pre­si­dent-elect’s nie­ce and a fier­ce cri­tic of her unc­le, “I am so deep­ly sor­ry…I thought bet­ter of us.”

The way we are now

Pro­fes­sor Brem­mer said it straight: 

“What we have just seen with this elec­ti­on is that the Ame­ri­can pe­op­le do not ac­tu­al­ly ac­cept those va­lu­es and that the Ame­ri­can pre­si­dent-elect does not ac­cept those va­lu­es.” 

Ot­her ex­perts have ins­te­ad rus­hed to ra­ti­o­na­li­ze the out­co­me. They’ve no­ted how the Trump agen­da is not sup­por­ted by all Ame­ri­cans des­pi­te the wins for Trump and the Trump Par­ty (the new name used by even some mainst­re­am Ame­ri­can me­dia for what was for­mer­ly known as the Re­pub­li­can Par­ty). They say that vo­ters did not re­al­ly un­ders­tand what they vo­ted for. They ex­pect a ro­bust de­ba­te about the chan­ges to come and they have al­re­a­dy be­gun to spe­cu­la­te about who will run in the next elec­ti­on to chan­ge things back again four ye­ars from now. 

They are wrong.

There’s no re­a­son to as­su­me that Trump will be in the White Hou­se for on­ly four more ye­ars. To the cont­ra­ry, Trump and his par­ty pro­mi­sed to over­haul and eli­mi­na­te vi­tal Ame­ri­can ins­ti­tu­ti­ons and to over­turn fun­da­men­tal po­li­cies and prin­cip­les, es­pe­ci­al­ly those de­sig­ned to en­su­re the long-term exis­ten­ce of Ame­ri­can de­moc­ra­cy and the le­gi­ti­ma­cy of fu­tu­re Ame­ri­can elec­ti­ons. 

The day af­ter the elec­ti­on, a Trump aco­ly­te re-elec­ted to Cong­ress, Re­pub­li­can Lau­ren Bo­e­bert, wrote on so­ci­al me­dia that “We need to en­su­re that our Re­pub­li­can ma­jo­ri­ty…re­mains strong, and we must ral­ly be­hind Pre­si­dent Trump to se­cu­re his third term.” The U.S. cons­ti­tu­ti­on li­mits U.S. Pre­si­dents to on­ly two four-ye­ar terms in of­fi­ce, but vi­o­la­ting the cons­ti­tu­ti­on is ap­pa­rent­ly unim­por­tant to a mem­ber of the U.S. Cong­ress when it in­vol­ves sup­por­ting Trump. 

On the same day, Trump’s daugh­ter-in-law Lara Trump (co-chair of the Re­pub­li­can Na­ti­o­nal Com­mit­tee that for­mal­ly cont­rols the Trump par­ty) said, “Ma­y­be now it's the time, on­ce Do­nald Trump is inau­gu­ra­ted…[to]…have a blan­ket fe­de­ral elec­ti­on pro­cess that eve­ry state abi­des by and we feel very good about it all ac­ross the count­ry”. Do­zens of courts have al­re­a­dy de­ter­mi­ned that no fraud oc­cur­red in the 2020 elec­ti­on and no one has shown any fraud in 2024 eit­her. That’s ap­pa­rent­ly not enough to make her “feel good” – so she must mean she wants to feel good about the next elec­ti­on’s out­co­me by chan­ging the U.S. elec­ti­on pro­cess to en­su­re that the Trump par­ty’s ene­mies (i.e. can­di­da­tes who are De­moc­rats) can no lon­ger win elec­ti­ons and per­haps not even par­ti­ci­pa­te in them. 

That goal was made clear to Ame­ri­can vo­ters. Alt­hough Trump cont­ra­dic­ted him­self du­ring his cam­paign, he ne­ver wa­ve­red in his open ad­mi­ra­ti­on of dic­ta­tors and their one-par­ty rule, his de­si­re to ac­hie­ve a si­mi­lar role and his dis­re­gard for Ame­ri­can-style rule of law.  

A strong ma­jo­ri­ty of Ame­ri­cans sup­por­ted that goal by elec­ting him again. Ot­hers didn’t want that, but they lost. Some vo­ters may even­tu­al­ly reg­ret their choi­ce, but de­moc­ra­cy-type vo­ting me­ans they could vote to rep­la­ce the old vo­ting ru­les. They chose a Pre­si­dent and ot­her can­di­da­tes from the par­ty who pro­mi­sed to do exact­ly that. It’s too late to get the old ru­les back. As the sa­ying goes “be ca­re­ful what you ask for be­cau­se you might get it!” 

Ame­ri­cans are stuck with the out­co­me of the 2024 elec­ti­on, even if it’s the last one. This is not hy­per­bo­le – it’s reg­ret­tab­ly naï­ve to as­su­me that the Uni­ted Sta­tes will have le­gi­ti­ma­te elec­ti­ons four ye­ars from now. They may be a lot more like Pu­tin’s elec­ti­ons.  If not for Trump, then one of his child­ren may be “elec­ted” ins­te­ad.

The way we will be

So what should Fin­land do going for­ward? On­ce again, Pro­fes­sor Brem­mer of­fe­red a con­ci­se and ac­cu­ra­te res­pon­se:

“U.S. al­lies around the world have to re­cog­ni­ze that they still may have a lot of sha­red in­te­rests with the Uni­ted Sta­tes but they no lon­ger have those sha­red va­lu­es.”

He is right. Old Ame­ri­can va­lu­es will be rep­la­ced as pro­mi­sed. The new ones may be simp­ler than old va­lu­es that ac­coun­ted for Ame­ri­cans’ comp­lex and di­ver­se be­liefs. One examp­le aro­se throug­hout Trump’s cam­paign: the va­lue of hate. Hat­red gave his MAGA mo­ve­ment pur­po­se and me­a­ning. He clai­med that Pre­si­dent Bi­den “ha­tes” Vice-Pre­si­dent Har­ris, that Har­ris “ha­tes” Is­ra­el and al­so ha­tes Arabs. Af­ter Ta­y­lor Swift en­dor­sed Har­ris ins­te­ad of him, Trump pos­ted “I HATE TA­Y­LOR SWIFT” in ca­pi­tal let­ters. 

Proud­ly ha­ting ot­her Ame­ri­cans is now an ac­cep­tab­le and po­pu­lar Ame­ri­can va­lue. Si­mi­lar­ly, the Trum­pi­an view of Ame­ri­ca is that it’s a “gar­ba­ge can,” that’s been “in­va­ded and con­qu­e­red” by “mur­de­rers, ra­pists, and il­le­gal cri­mi­nals” and “ver­min” with “bad ge­nes” who are “poi­so­ning the blood of our count­ry”. Any­o­ne who says ot­her­wi­se is “the ene­my wit­hin.” Some ene­mies – im­mig­rants and U.S. ci­ti­zens ali­ke – are “not pe­op­le” (all quo­tes from Trump’s speec­hes).  Rich Ame­ri­cans will get ric­her, at the ex­pen­se of poo­rer ones. Wo­men will be ta­ken care of, whet­her they like it or not. Scien­ce and facts will re­main se­con­da­ry, if re­le­vant at all. No one will be ex­pec­ted to tell the truth about anyt­hing. Wild­ly fic­ti­o­nal sto­ries about ea­ting pet cats will jus­ti­fy wi­desp­re­ad bru­ta­li­ty against le­gal im­mig­rants and pe­op­le of co­lor.

That’s wrong. It’s fac­tu­al­ly wrong and et­hi­cal­ly wrong.

Ye­ah, wha­te­ver. Such mo­ral­ly bank­rupt yet va­lue-ba­sed choi­ces will ne­vert­he­less gui­de the U.S. go­vern­ment’s po­li­cies and ac­ti­ons, rub­ber-stam­ped and fun­ded by Trump’s Cong­ress. Cre­a­ting and then exp­loi­ting Ame­ri­ca’s in­ter­nal di­vi­si­ons (real or ima­gi­ned) is sup­po­sed to put “Ame­ri­ca first” and “make Ame­ri­ca great again”. I have no idea how that will work. Per­haps we’ll see that the old va­lu­es that Ame­ri­cans vo­ted to aban­don we­ren’t so bad af­ter all. Un­for­tu­na­te­ly, any wis­dom we may gain la­ter will be too lit­t­le and too late be­cau­se the Uni­ted Sta­tes will be a dif­fe­rent kind of count­ry.

Fin­ns do not share such va­lu­es, nor will they. I was wrong about the va­lu­es held by most of my fel­low Ame­ri­cans, but I’m 100% sure I’m right about my fel­low Fin­ns and their va­lu­es. Fin­land needs to keep its va­lu­es in­tact but, when de­a­ling with the USA, fo­cus on­ly on sha­red in­te­rests in na­ti­o­nal and in­ter­na­ti­o­nal se­cu­ri­ty, coo­pe­ra­ti­on in tech­no­lo­gy and bu­si­ness tran­sac­ti­ons that will let Ame­ri­cans think they are first and great again…wha­te­ver that may turn out to mean. 

* * *

Tom A. Lip­po is a Fin­nish-spe­a­king Ame­ri­can la­wy­er. Edu­ca­ted at Ya­le, the Uni­ver­si­ty of Jy­väs­ky­lä and Stan­ford Law School, he is the foun­der of FACT LAW, an in­ter­na­ti­o­nal law firm es­tab­lis­hed in 1985. FACT is the first law firm with of­fi­ces in both Fin­land and the Uni­ted Sta­tes. Tom has been a la­wy­er in Was­hing­ton, DC ba­sed on Ca­pi­tol Hill for over 40 ye­ars.