In an April 23 editorial, the Wall Street Journal editorial team spoke of a Mitterrand moment in Washington. This may seem mysterious at first glance, since Donald Trump is more of a libertarian and François Mitterrand was a socialist. They are polar opposites. One wants to reduce the weight of the federal government, while the other believes the economy should revolve around the decisions of the state and central government.

The WSJ’s parallel, therefore, is not about ideological proximity, but rather about the shift in economic policy that the WSJ perceives in Donald Trump. The brutal stance on tariffs has given way to accommodations for Canada, Mexico, electronics, and more recently, the automobile industry. The initial break would not be definitive, especially if the White House contacts Beijing for an arrangement.

At the beginning of 1983, Pierre Mauroy’s government, under the leadership of Jacques Delors, had taken a turn toward austerity. The adventurous policies of the first few months were abruptly ending. Previous choices were rejected, and it was necessary to conform to the wishes of the dominant model. WSJ editorialists see Trump’s recent position as a shift similar to that made by Mitterrand in 1983.

I’m afraid it’s not that simple.
Almost two years had passed before the French government of the time made the decisions leading to the break. That’s a long time, and there had been three devaluations of the franc; three measures of the inadequacy of the policy pursued. Even if time moves faster today, no failure of this type is observable in the USA. Market dynamics were not favorable, but there was no break similar to three devaluations. It is too short a time to assess the new president and demonstrate the failure of the policy pursued, even if one does not share it.

The second major difference is the political dynamics at work. In 1983, after the third devaluation, the issue was Europe. Either France left the EMS and weakened the entire European construction, or France remained in the EMS but took the necessary measures to achieve this. This second option was chosen. France had to remain in Europe, and austerity was the instrument for this. France had fallen into line but had saved Europe.

Donald Trump believes the world must adapt to the American strategy. The choices being made now do not appear definitive. They reflect wait-and-see positions that keep all economic players in the dark about what will be implemented later. Furthermore, not all countries around the world are willing to follow the White House’s instructions. The battle is therefore not over, and there is no doubt that Donald Trump will soon attempt a comeback.

Trump is not Mitterrand and the brilliant choice of 1983 does not yet light up the Capitol