Clinton conundrum
THERE is no longer much cause to doubt that Hillary Clinton will be inaugurated in January as the first female president of the US. The opinion polls have been strongly trending that way, notably after her Republican rival, Donald Trump, indicated last week that he would accept the result of the Nov 8 election only if he won the contest.
He has also undermined himself in multiple other ways, mainly through successive failures to disguise his true nature.
A handful of observers are, however, unconvinced. They fear (or, in some cases, hope) that the polls are off the mark. They will tell you that Trump’s stunt candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination was, for quite some time, deemed hopeless. That in the case of this particular contender, it would be a mistake not to expect the unexpected.
The tendency to view him as little more than a bad joke was, however, short-lived. By the time the nominating convention loomed large, he was clearly a frontrunner. Equally clearly, he isn’t one at the moment. In recent months, some polls placed him neck-and-neck with Clinton, but that is no longer the case. She appears to have pulled clear in the aftermath of the three ill-tempered presidential debates and a series of sexual assault allegations against Trump, whose strident misogyny was anyhow hardly in doubt.
Many of Clinton’s poll pledges won’t translate into policy.
Yes, there is a chance that the opinion polls could all be drastically off-kilter and a dreadful November surprise looms a couple of weeks ahead. But the probability is minuscule. And diminishing.
That does not necessarily translate into cause for celebration, though. Sure, it is by any standard high time a woman ascended to the highest office in the land (and arguably the world). After all, nations on every continent barring North America, many with considerably less experience of democracy than the US, have for decades been endorsing women as heads of government. The fact that it has taken nearly a century after women won the right to vote for this to become a viable option in the US is a travesty.
That is hardly sufficient reason, though, to unequivocally hail the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Sure, the fact that, barring Trump, she is the most unpopular major-party nominee in American history can be attributed in part to sexist attitudes. But that is by no means the whole story. Let’s not forget that during the campaign for the Democratic Party nomination, younger women tended to favour an older man — not out of deference to the prevailing patriarchy, but because that particular man credibly held out the prospect of attractive deviations from the neoliberal norm.
Bernie Sanders whipped up a considerable degree of enthusiasm despite self-identifying as a democratic socialist in a country where socialism is supposed to be a dirty word. He offered an unusually progressive alternative to the disillusioned. His message resonated with the growing numbers of discontented Americans who find cause for despondency in the status quo, yet are sensible enough, by and large, not to place their faith in the kind of change presaged by Trump.
A direct contest between Sanders and Trump would have been a fascinating battle over sharply contrasting visions for America’s future. And it may well have taken place had the Democratic establishment remained relatively neutral in the primary conflict between Hillary and Bernie. Predictably, that did not happen.
There is not a great deal of succour to be derived from the fact that Clinton has found it expedient to take on board elements of the Sanders platform, for instance in respect of free-trade arrangements, college tuition fees and universal healthcare.
Intriguing input from WikiLeaks, possibly via state-sponsored Russian hackers, is hardly necessary, however, to recognise her contrary inclinations, and her record as secretary of state points to a deplorable enthusiasm for disastrous military interventions and regime change, not to mention an unrestrained passion for Israel’s Likudite predilections. Her cosiness with the sources of wealth, from Goldman-Sachs to the likes of Trump himself, is not much of a secret. And it goes almost without saying that many of her election promises will not translate into policy.
For all that, it boggles the mind when voices on the left suggest that, as president, she would be more dangerous than Trump. No. There is plenty to be said against the status quo and there is little cause to pretend that the second Clinton presidency will represent a welcome watershed. It’s infinitely dumber, though, to imply that the Tea Party was a dangerous phenomenon, but that it would be fine for the Mad Hatter to be ensconced in the White House. Sure, ‘lesser evilism’ is a curse. But Trump is not a risk worth taking. Under any circumstances.
Published in Dawn October 26th, 2016