Clearly, in anticipation of the Democratic and Republican party conventions due in the second half of July, the competition between those seeking nomination for candidacy of the presidency becomes increasingly intense, while at the same time gradually indicating a degree of certainty as to what the conclusions will be like.
On the Democratic side, a certain expectation that Hillary Clinton would become the party’s candidate has become increasingly apparent as the contest between the contesting individuals has narrowed down. And on the Republican side, the strength of resources which Donald Trump has been known to have, in addition to his insistence on pursuing a persistent denigration of those competing against himself, has begun to indicate a strong degree of certainty that his bid will be successful.
And finally, President Obama has given to the world, particularly by his recent visit to the United Kingdom, the US’s number one ally, a clear indication that he recognizes that time is now moving on towards his exit as de facto leader of the Western alliance, and that the attention of his allies must turn to the presidential succession.
The President has not as yet given a systematic public indication of his support for what is now an inevitability of Clinton’s candidacy, but he is well aware that she is campaigning not only as a former Senator in the Democratic ranks, but more importantly, as his one-time Secretary of State, and therefore part formulator, protagonist and executor of his foreign policy. And to that extent, he must support the assertion by the Clinton camp that his success in foreign relations also partially reflects her success in office during his tenure.
Yet, as is inevitable, Clinton will certainly want to be asserting a certain originality of policy positioning during her tenure, and in that regard, will be well aware that the voting public will also be aware that she has inevitably had, as a key adviser, the certainly expert advice-cum-guidance of Bill Clinton, whose foreign policy decision-making during his tenure as President, demonstrated a certain success.
Some might well be subtly indicating to the voting public that with her election, the American public will have two for the price of one in terms of expertise in the conduct of national policy. But of course, by the opposite reasoning, there will be those who will not be welcoming of the formula of two active decision-makers (two for the price of one) simultaneously at the White House.
Of course, it is probably fair to say that the other individuals seeking the Democratic candidacy do not seem to have demonstrated the apparent scope of Mrs Clinton’s experience and potential as a viable candidate. For as the campaign on that side has come down to a Clinton-Bernie Sanders contest, and even as some in the voting population have seemed to indicate a degree of dissatisfaction with the results of Barack Obama’s domestic economic policy, it would appear to be the case that not many of them have adopted Sanders’ view that a change of policy, seeming to be in the direction of what in Western Europe would be called a kind of democratic socialism, is acceptable for the United States.
Indeed, also, neither of the candidates seem to have felt it necessary to take the campaigning line that, as is undoubtedly the case, Obama’s domestic economic policy has been successful in pulling the country out of recession without the mass unemployment that such policy initiatives tend to require. It is left to be seen, therefore, whether that line of campaigning will come from the President’s mouth itself, as he decides how to assert his support for the maintenance of a Democratic party representative in the next presidency.
On the Republican side, it is now almost a truism that there has been a certain and substantial inequality of strength and assertiveness among the individuals seeking the party’s nomination, this deriving from the extent of Donald Trump’s financial resources, partially inherited. Trump, on the other hand, has sought to discount the contention that this is responsible for his domination of the Republican field, by insisting that it is his extensive experience accompanied by a degree of self-confidence deriving from success, that has given him the upper hand in the eyes of Republican voters.
It is also true, however, that while Trump has rested his case for nomination on his experience in the worlds of international and domestic finance, he has positioned himself in that regard as definitively superior to other candidates, many of whom are relatively young. And indeed, it is the case that two in the Republican field, Governor Bush from Florida, and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who seemed to have been perceived as having had the experience to mount a campaign for the Republican party’s nomination, appear to have failed to make an impression, leaving the field to John Kasich and the relatively young and inexperienced Senators Ted Cruz and up until March 15, Marco Rubio.
In addition, Trump appears to have asserted that in regard to what many would deem to be a chauvinistic position in respect of future US foreign policy, none of the other contenders felt confident enough to persistently oppose it, or discount it as unrealistic. In effect, he insists, they were not able to find an alternative strategy to the view that he, recognizing a certain insecurity in the population vis-à-vis the economic situation, has brought directly to the fore. And he insists, also, that what he describes as a widespread domestic sense of insecurity is based on the voters’ sense of other countries having taken advantage of the United States’ position and policies.
In particular, Trump has insisted that the trade policies of previous governments have been beneficial not to the United States, but largely to other countries. His hostility to Mexico and to the Asian states has been based on this, insisting that the result has been due to US negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the one hand, and, on the other, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which the US agreed with Mexico and Canada in 1994. And since the Republican Party has supported these initiatives, his own opponents, as candidates, have seemed to have felt it impossible to follow his path of criticism.
In that regard, a prevailing argument would appear to be that no serious candidate, whether on the Republican or Democratic sides, can responsibly support Trump’s argument, particularly as, in the case of his opposition to US-Mexico arrangements, he has sought to strongly oppose Mexican immigration to the United States, suggesting that in both economic and immigration strategies, that the United States has wounded itself. Hence what seems to most to be near to a joke ‒ his assertion of the need to build a wall between the two countries at Mexico’s expense.
But it is also recognized that Trump, in addition to his assertions against trade agreements, has sought to light a fire under simmering opposition to further immigration, including Mexican immigration, into the US. And clearly his opponents deem this as irresponsible, impossible and therefore opportunist, even though it appears to have found traction among the American voters.
What is interesting is the prospect of a Democratic candidate having to face Trump’s political initiative directly. For as yet, they are of significance really only within the Republican Party, in the context of the coming Convention. But certainly, if Trump prevails, it will be interesting to see whether the successful Democratic candidate asserts a forthright opposition to his views, or decides to take cognizance of an apparently widespread assumption that they have traction well beyond the Republican voting constituency.
