BY
This
is really exciting time in America; watching the drama of the 2016 Presidential
nomination process from a distance, I find the contests, the debates, the
arguments, the hustling and jostling on both sides of the mainstream political
aisle, most instructive, and intriguing. The world’s most advanced democracy is
proving once again that freedom is a golden ideal and that anyone who seeks to
lead it, must undergo a rigorous test of leadership and courage. So far, the
presidential primaries have proven to be a sifting process, and after last
Tuesday, better known as Super Tuesday, many of the otherwise promising
candidates have dropped out of the race, leaving the field to just a few
survivors.
But
the prospects are clear: Senator Hillary Clinton seems a sure bet on the
Democratic side, with Senator Bernie Sanders still trailing behind. The
Republicans too may well end up with Donald Trump. The other contenders: Marco
Rubio, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich may not succeed in displacing Trump. And this
in itself is a source of anxiety, to both Americans and non-Americans alike. If
the race gets down to a Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump scenario, we all have
every reason to be anxious. Suppose Trump wins and becomes America’s President?
Donald
Trump is a snarling insurgent and a nativist. He has said all the worse things
that should never be uttered by anyone seeking to lead a responsible and
diverse nation. His campaign has been marked by insults, anger, put downs,
bully tactics, rants and unapologetic immaturity. He has not been able to
articulate any coherent policy, but he has proved to be very creative with
populist histrionics. The list of Trumpisms is so frighteningly long and
embarrassing. He recommends torture, and the killing of families of terrorists.
He has been endorsed by white supremacists and he doesn’t quite seem to mind
being labeled a racist. He threatens violence and on one occasion, he almost
punched a protester in the face. He even got into an altercation with the Pope.
He wants to barricade the American South border, and build a wall to shut out
Mexico, because according to him, the Mexicans who cross the border into
America are “rapists.” And when that wall is built, he insists Mexico must pick
up the bill.
He
doesn’t want Muslims inside America either, and he has dismissed Africans as
unwanted and Nigerians as a problem. He says:
“We
need to get the Africans out. Not the blacks, the Africans. Especially the
Nigerians. They’re everywhere. I went for a rally in Alaska and met just one
African in the entire state. Where was he from? Nigeria! He’s in Alaska taking
our jobs. They’re in Houston taking our jobs. Why can’t they stay in their own
country? Why? I’ll tell you why. Because they are corrupt. Their Governments
are so corrupt, they rob the people blind and bring it all here to spend. And
their people run away and come down here and take our jobs! We can’t have that!
If I become president, we’ll send them all home. We’ll build a wall at the
Atlantic Shore. Then maybe we’ll re-colonize them because obviously they did
not learn a damn thing from the British!”
This
certainly cannot be the temperament of a man who wants to be President. Indeed,
one of the most amazing things that has happened in the on-going process is how
a real estate and reality television celebrity, whose best achievement is
inheriting wealth, and turning around a family business, more by instinct
rather than any special technocratic ability, has ended up, getting close to
winning the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party, with the
frightening prospect of becoming President of the United States on January 20,
2017.
The
irony is that everyone underestimated him. The media loved the headlines that
he offered with his many offensive remarks. He was regarded in many quarters as
a comical distraction, and a bubble that may soon burst. There were pictures of
his current wife, looking like a siren, with her drop-dead gorgeous figure, and
skimpy dressing that belongs more to Hollywood rather than the White House.
When Ted Cruz upstaged him in the Iowa caucuses, there were sighs of relief,
but since then The Donald has won every other primary, and on March 1, he won
in seven of the 11 states. He is also likely to do better than his closest
rivals in the coming caucuses. Except a miracle happens, Donald Trump will be
the Republican flagbearer for the 2016 Presidential election. He has received
endorsements from key members of the Republican establishment, something that
was thought unlikely. In a recent debate, his fiercest opponents even said they
would support anyone that wins the GOP nomination. It may be too late to “dump
Trump.”
He
did not invent the votes that have put him comfortably in the lead. Republican
voters actually gave him the votes. While voters at party primaries do not
represent the general voting population, they are nevertheless saying something
about the American mind at this moment. Trump’s message of xenophobia,
protectionism and isolationism attracts large followership and excites the
conservative crowd. The average American is angry: angry with his
circumstances, with the establishment, with the lack of jobs, with the economy,
with politicians, with foreigners. Trump shapes all that anger into rhetoric
and he offers himself as an alternative. He is not part of the establishment;
he is against it. He calls himself a “common sense conservative” but he is
actually a political insurgent. The only time he has said anything that sounded
Presidential was after Super Tuesday, when he departed from his usual script.
This
has been taken as a sign that perhaps Trump will re-brand, and that his style
so far has been nothing but populist gimmickry. As President of the United
States, he would probably change that style, recruit experts to handle state
affairs, and restrain himself. But can America afford to vote on the basis of
that possibility? Can America afford to gamble? Trump is impulsive and
non-conventional; there is no guarantee that his Presidency will not trump
America and embarrass the party of Abraham Lincoln. The character of the leader
affects nearly everything else. It will be too much to believe that Donald
Trump is merely acting, given his surplus confidence.
Mrs.
Hillary Clinton is a better choice, but going into a general election, she
would have to deal with the division within the Democratic fold. Bernie
Sanders, her leading rival, has such a devoted grassroots followership that has
divided the Democrats into the pro- and anti-establishment wings. Sanders has
mobilized such a fanatical political base within the party and on social media
that does not trust Mrs Clinton. She has been branded a friend of Wall Street
and the status quo, whereas Sanders and his supporters insist that the best way
forward is to change how Washington works, and they do not believe Mrs Clinton
can do that.
Despite
her attempts to move a little to the left in recent times, the insurgents
running a “Bernie or Bust” campaign may move to the Trump side during the
general elections because they are convinced she is play-acting, just to win
the nomination. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is admired for his progressive,
liberal ideas. But again, just as in Trump’s case, his mostly young supporters
are motivated by anger and insecurity. Sanders wants to redistribute wealth,
checkmate Wall Street, and revolutionize health care. The young and the angry
are excited but those ideas are not properly articulated in policy terms. And
in any case, will the American voter be willing to have as President a man who
says he is a “socialist?”
Mrs
Clinton’s big challenge is to play the role of a unifier and take steps to
unite the party, after winning the Democratic nomination. She will definitely
need that “Bernie or Bust” crowd. She struck the right chord when she spoke
recently about love and unity, quoting the Scriptures. “Love never fails. Love
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”
(I Corinthians 13),” she said.
“These
are words to live by, not only for ourselves, but also for our country. I know
it sometimes seems a little odd for someone running for president in these
days, in this time, to say we need more love and kindness in America. But I’m
telling you from the bottom of my heart we do. We do.
“There
is no doubt in my mind that America’s best years can be ahead of us. We have
got to believe that. We’ve got to work for that. We have to stand with each
other. We have to hold each other up, lift each other up, move together into
the future that we will make.”
These
are wise, consolatory words. Mrs Clinton has her heart in the right place and
has both the experience and the maturity to lead America. Senator, former
Secretary of State, and 42nd First Lady of the United States, more than 25
years in the limelight has exposed Hillary Rodham Clinton to intense media scrutiny,
creating what many consider an image problem. But whatever that is, it can be
surmounted. A Presidential contest between her and Trump will amount to a
choice between love and hate, between the sober and the outrageous, between the
respectable and the grossly self-contradictory. America needs to encourage love
and kindness within its borders and also stand with the rest of the world. The
angry American voter who feels under-represented, alienated, jobless and
unfulfilled, and who desperately wants to punish the establishment, may be
making a comment on mainstream politics, orthodoxy and the performance of the
Obama administration. But that anger should not be turned against the rest of
the world by putting a xenophobe and closet dictator in the White House.
Democracy
is tricky; it sometimes ends up as a parody of itself. When the people clamour
for change, they can vote with their hearts, and prove impervious to plain
sight reason, and overlook likely pitfalls. We can only hope that Donald Trump
does not become the symbol of the change that Americans are seeking. That would
be sad indeed for the free world.
No comments:
Post a Comment