Michael - Thursday
Sometimes my friends ask me why I follow US politics. After
all, I live in South Africa and most Americans
don’t follow US politics. Well, I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the US one
way and another and, when all is said and done, US politics matter to everyone.
A change of government philosophy in Zimbabwe – or South Africa for that matter – will
hardly cause a ripple on the surface of world affairs. But if the US casts a pebble into the water, it may cause choppy waves all over the place. Mind you, it’s not always clear that one can
predict the way presidents will behave. George W Bush was not one of my
favorite leaders, yet he did a lot for Africa.
He had a serious interest in the continent, and directed a lot of aid and
support for medical and other purposes this way.
Maybe not all of it was well used, but it made a significant impact. On
the other hand, Barrack Obama – still rumored by some people to have been born on this continent! –
has been much less forthcoming. His interests lie elsewhere – perhaps mainly in
the thankless task of trying to understand and coexist with the Muslim word.
So with Super Tuesday just behind us, it seems reasonable to
speculate about the path ahead. Hillary has trounced Bernie outside his home turf; in
the end his appeal doesn’t really seem to have extended beyond his white
liberal base. The denunciation of the evils of Wall Street – however real - tends to pall after the fiftieth rally. Is there really such a big disagreement between the candidates on that? It’s a bit like Jeremy Corbyn saying he’s “not
on the same side of the argument” as David Cameron (about whether the UK should
stay in or withdraw from the European Community). Cameron thinks the UK should
stay in. On the other hand, Corbyn thinks…the UK should stay in.
Actually Bernie did better than I would have guessed picking up Minnesota, Oklahoma and Colorado by small margins as well as sweeping Vermont. But he lost badly in the South. So Hillary will be leading the Democratic Party into the fray in November, carrying with her a lot of baggage, but not all of it bad. People know who she is. She’s not perfect, but she’s paid her dues.
Actually Bernie did better than I would have guessed picking up Minnesota, Oklahoma and Colorado by small margins as well as sweeping Vermont. But he lost badly in the South. So Hillary will be leading the Democratic Party into the fray in November, carrying with her a lot of baggage, but not all of it bad. People know who she is. She’s not perfect, but she’s paid her dues.
As for the Donald, well, Cruz (Texas) and Rubio (Minnesota again) gave him a run for
his money. And I do mean HIS money. He doesn't go for the PACs either. (As has been pointed out, he and Bernie have
several things in common.) Of course, just where his money came from in the first place
is another question. But by the time the establishment candidates realized that
he and Cruz weren’t jokes, but serious contenders – in fact the front runners –
it was all too late. Donald was smiling from sea to shining sea. Not that
there’s really much to choose between the Republican candidates anyway as far
as I can see. Paul Krugman summed it up beautifully in the New York Times.
Writing off Ted Cruz, he compared the remaining two serious Republican candidates in last week's Op Ed piece Cranks on Top. It started:
The thing is, one of the two
men who may still have a good chance of becoming the Republican nominee is a
scary character. His notions on foreign policy seem to boil down to the belief
that America can bully everyone into doing its bidding, and that engaging in
diplomacy is a sign of weakness. His ideas on domestic policy are deeply
ignorant and irresponsible, and would be disastrous if put into effect.
The other man, of course, has
very peculiar hair.
You can read the full piece HERE.
So what of the view from abroad? How will President Trump or
President Clinton play out? I would say from the bit I’ve read that almost
universally the rest of the world would prefer President Clinton. She’s been
Secretary of State and she comes across as interested in other countries even
if she hasn’t been able to make much diplomatic progress. (Who did?) Mostly,
she’s pretty predictable. One knows what one’s getting and gets what one knows.
The Donald is unpredictable. Will he really build a wall with Mexico? He says
the length is negotiable – to a few feet - but the wall is a given.
Does he really expect Mexico to pay for it? Or what? He’ll invade Mexico? As for China, they are manipulating currencies and have invented global warming to try to destroy American industries. He does feel he can work with Russia on ISIS. Well,
Putin has a thing or two in common with him. Maybe
they can do business. Certainly there seems more than a touch of narcissism in
the Russian leader too. Listen to what the Donald says. Maybe he doesn’t mean that stuff, but maybe he does. Because the stuff he says is ridiculous and impossible doesn't imply that he doesn't believe it.
One thing seems absolutely clear. The run of the mill politician has lost the confidence of people everywhere. For that reason alone, Hilary will have a run for her PACs' money.
One thing seems absolutely clear. The run of the mill politician has lost the confidence of people everywhere. For that reason alone, Hilary will have a run for her PACs' money.
