Angry America
THE dominant sentiment in America today is anger. Popular anger about lower economic expectations; nationalist anger at the loss of global dominance; anger against President Obama for acknowledging the limits of American power; anger against a dysfunctional political system and corrupt and colourless politicians; anger at immigrants for ‘taking’ American jobs; anger against Muslims presumed to be putative terrorists; anger against China for its ‘cheap’ exports that are seen to have killed American manufacturing; anger against Russia’s Putin for defying American power.
Instead of educating the public about the complex causes of America’s challenges, US politicians, especially the Republicans, have sought to cynically exploit this irrational anger to advance their careers and candidacies. The US media has further fuelled this march towards political extremism and irrationality. Outlandish and ignorant ‘bumper sticker’ slogans have become live themes of political debate in the current US presidential race.
Trump’s atrocious insults and threats, in particular, respond to the basest political instincts visible in America. His success in securing such wide support has virtually legitimised the xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism that exists in America but has been denied so far and kept in check by more thinking leaders like President Obama. Unfortunately, the two other leading Republican candidates, Cruz and Rubio, far from refuting Trump’s offensive postures, have sought to embrace some of his message of anger and hate.
It is frightening — for America’s future and global stability — that Trump has emerged as the Republican front runner, despite the opposition of the leaders of the party. Cruz may be as bad in his religious conservatism and Rubio not much better in reflecting realism and rationality. Thus, no matter which of the three leading Republican candidates emerges as the nominee, extremist and aggressive positions will form the bedrock of the Republican political platform.
If either Trump or Cruz is elected much of the right-wing anger may be reflected in US policies.
American anger is, however, not limited to the right wing. On the Democratic ‘left’ too, there is anger at an economic system that is seen to be ‘stacked’ against the poor, and in which inequality is growing (with 1pc of the population owning 50pc of American assets), hollowing out the middle class which been the backbone of American prosperity. There is anger among the young who can no longer expect, like their parents, to participate in the ‘American dream’; anger against politicians in thrall to Wall Street and special interests; anger among African-Americans at the visible evidence of racial discrimination — with 10pc of adult black males in prison and black youth frequently targeted in police violence.
It is thus that perhaps the only genuine ‘socialist’ in the US Senate, the grandfatherly Bernie Sanders, has emerged, after years of political marginalisation, to pose such a surprisingly strong challenge to the ultimate ‘establishment’ candidate, Hillary Clinton. Sanders’ economic analyses and policy positions are mostly sound. The issue is whether, given the structure of power within the US, he would be able to bring about the radical changes required to induct the equity he advocates into a grossly unequal economic and political system. It is this doubt, rather than disagreement with Sanders’ conclusions and prescriptions, that is likely to draw a larger percentage of Democratic voters to Hillary’s side.
The outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign remains uncertain. The odds are that Hillary Clinton will beat out Sanders for the Democratic nomination. The polls show her winning against Trump by the narrowest of margins. Yet, Trump has so far “defied gravity” and could further mobilise American anger to secure the White House. The Republican Party leadership will do its utmost to avoid nominating Trump and promote Rubio. But they will not be able to stand against a popular tide.
If either Trump or Cruz is elected in November, a large part of the American right-wing anger is likely to become reflected in US policies: a virtual if not real wall against immigrants; officially sanctioned discrimination against Muslims; trade tariffs and other barriers against Chinese goods and investment; revived US military interventions in Syria, Iraq, Libya and perhaps Afghanistan; renewed US sanctions against Iran; aggressive military deployments in the Pacific and the East and South China Seas to ‘contain’ a rising China; anti-Chinese alliances around its periphery; as well as significantly expanded military deployments, including missile defences, in Europe to deter a resurgent Russia.
Hillary Clinton’s presidency would probably display, with some differences, a continuity of the Obama administration’s measured approach to most of the complex challenges — internal and external-confronting the US. Domestically, Clinton would embrace the progressive agenda. Externally, she may be less cautious than Obama.
Clinton would need to accommodate some of the Republican policy positions, especially if the US Congress remains under their control. She could not rule a full four years by executive orders as Obama is doing in his final year in office. Her concessions to the other party would most likely be on foreign rather than domestic policy. She may be inclined to: expand US naval deployments and build political alliances against China; attempt to slow its exports to the US; adopt an interventionist role in the Syrian and other Middle East conflicts; and take a more robust stance against Russia in Europe.
What could make the strategic situation volatile is that China is also in the midst of important transitions, as President Xi Jinping consolidates his political authority on the promise of a Chinese ‘dream’ and seeks to transform the Chinese economy, even as it is slowing, from investment- and export-led growth to one fuelled by domestic consumption.
Aggressive American actions are likely to meet strong ‘nationalistic’ responses from Beijing. Asia could become acutely polarised between the US and Chinese ‘camps’. An Asian Cold War could intensify local and regional conflicts. Revived US interventionism in the Muslim world would spread further chaos and strengthen rather than weaken extremism and terrorism. And, Russia remains unbowed and is likely to push back strongly, especially in Europe, at military and political attempts to contain its resurgent presence on the world stage.
The hope is that Winston Churchill was right in his conclusion that: “You can depend on the Americans to do the right thing, after trying everything else.”
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.
Source: Angry America
Published in Dawn, March 6th, 2016