It was a ray of hope for a country that seemed to be on a losing streak; the economy best with "stagflation" (stagnant GDP growth coupled with high inflation), the ever-present threat of oil price shocks, uncertainty about America's place in the world, and the lingering effects of Watergate and the Nixon years.
The 2016 Presidential Election Campaign has been a different ball of wax. There have been tense, consequential, contests in the past, at least one of which (2008) actually generated a bit of euphoria. There year, there's no "Morning Again in America," no "It's the Economy, Stupid," no "Change We Can Believe In," nothing. Sadly, Trump's signature "Make America Great Again" has been underwritten almost entirely by a message of fear and loathing rather than hope and change.
No matter who wins, I am worried about what comes next. The next four years are going to be rough.
Silver Linings Playbook?
I have sought silver linings wherever I can find them in the 2016 campaign; many of which I have talked about in this blog. I've told myself that Madison and Hamilton brilliantly designed America's political institutions to thwart the concentration of power. Hence, the double-edged sword that confronts all presidents-- electoral mandate or not, new presidents have a tough time getting their way. I've turned to the likes of Alexis DeToqueville for insights into culture and the importance of "meritocracy" as mythology in American life. I've even offered a slight defense of the incivility of the 2016 campaign, essentially arguing that there is no other political contest on Earth as consequential as an American presidential election and that, as a result, it ought to be a bruising process.
Still, I was recently asked whether I thought America was poised to go over a cliff on November 9? The answer I gave in response was anchored in some the silver linings I noted above, but left me unsettled. I spoke about the separation of powers, the resilience of American political institutions, the health qualities of America's in-your-face political culture, and the intense interest (some of it, admittedly, for all the wrong reasons) in this historic campaign. In short, the message was; "sleep well, the sun will come up on November 9th."
Moreover, I noted that I had turned to the history books for parallels and examples against which to compare the 2016 cycle. The one example that I keep coming back to is 1968. It was among the worst years in America history, and perhaps one of its most consequential. Racial and socio-economic divides were everywhere and being deepened by the realization that America was not "winning" the Vietnam War (the Tet Offensive destroyed that myth). There was Lyndon Johnson's surprise announcement that he would not seek re-election and the chaos and violence of the Democratic Convention in Chicago. And then, of course, there were the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. America was, literally, on fire. Annus horribilius.
We are not there.
Yet, in 2016, that knowledge has been often been cold comfort. As I wrote earlier this fall, I reluctantly voted for Clinton, but the candidates churned out by the two political parties leave much to be desired. More broadly, I don't see in either candidate someone with the capacity to deal with the worrisome pattern of economic and political nationalism around the globe. I hope I am being alarmist, but all too frequently, a lot of what I see going on reminds me of my reading of the interwar years (1918-1937/39) (see also).
I sincerely HOPE we are not there.
The Abyss
My main source of anxiety about Tuesday's result stems from the fact that the winner will inherent a bitterly divided country that neither seems capable of bridging. Moreover, neither will inherent a discernible mandate from voters about how to do so. There will be a winner, but it may be a Pyrrhic victory. Houses Divided
Clinton and Trump face considerable challenges within their own political parties. Trump currently sits atop a Republican political party that has been at war with itself for nearly a decade. Indeed, I think there's a reasonable chance Trumpism could result in a complete splintering of the GOP and a realignment of the American political party system. Trump's candidacy has exposed deep, long-standing fissures within the GOP that ought to provide the impetus for big changes. Yet, that was the also the message after Romney lost in 2012 and the RNC initiated a forensic audit of what the GOP needed to do to changes its electoral fortunes. Nothing was done then, and I doubt Trump is going to be the one to lead such a reform effort. The need is there, but who will lead the charge?
Whether Trump wins or loses Tuesday, there will be big fights within the GOP over who supported Mr. Trump and who didn't? Will Paul Ryan's luke-warm support for Trump cost him the Speaker's job if the GOP retains the House by loses the White House by a narrow margin? What about those GOP members in swing districts who disavowed Trump to save their own seats? How unified will the House GOP be?
Clinton is not without her own internal party challenges. The insurgent candidacy of Bernie Sanders continues to roil the ranks of Democrats around the country. A President Clinton is going to have to do a lot of bridge-building. More importantly for her agenda, a President Clinton will be facing constant pressure from Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and their supporters--many of whom are disillusioned with Obama's inability to get more progressive policies enacted-- to adopt more progressive positions in a range of policy areas. In a more bipartisan political environment, a president with centrist instincts like Mrs. Clinton would naturally reach out to Republicans to help each other neutralize the most extreme elements in each of their ranks and get a lot done. There will be no such assistance from the GOP, most of whom see red when Hillary Clinton's name is even mentioned.
Under normal circumstances, I might suggest that the chaos in both parties could provide a President Clinton or President Trump with the basis for some bipartisan deal-making. The fighting within each party, coupled with a general absence of party discipline, might have generated some odd, but effective coalitions in support of a range of policy initiatives on the Hill. I'm not going to get my hopes up.
Whom ever survives to take the oath of office in January will do so with more baggage than perhaps any president in American history. Americans' views of each of them have been baked in for quite a while, and I worry about their capacities to turn that around once in office. This has been a campaign built almost entirely on who can "out-negative" the other. While the FBI deserves scorn for it's 11th hour bombshell that it was looking into additional e-mails related to Clinton's server, I have been amazed at the degree to which these two candidates fortunes have risen and fallen on the basis of who can stay out of the news. Amazing.
Release the Pressure
One of my most sincere hopes is that Tuesday's election is decisive in some manner. The media likes to play up all kinds of crazy scenarios about the Electoral College, popular vote, and the different ways in which the whole thing could end up being decided by the House of Representatives or by the Courts (as it was in 2000). Trump, of course, has already done great damage to the credibility of the electoral system by telling supporters the system is "rigged" against them, fuelling conspiracy theories and undermining the entire process (it's pretty hard to rig an American election). Yet, a big source of my November 9th angst is what happens to the millions of loyal Trump supporters, a large proportion of which have until now felt disenfranchised, unrepresented, and left behind by the political system? Where is the pressure valve to release some of the anger that Trump has tapped into, and in many cases fueled, through out the campaign? Will the rumored Trump TV media presence be enough to channel their frustrations? Will the so-called alt-Right, fueled by the loss and social media, morph into something beyond the fringe presence it was prior to 2016?
FBI Director James Comey has conveniently given that fringe a material to work with over the last two weeks. First, his announcement that there "might" be e-mails pertinent to the Clinton investigation on Anthony Weiner's computer turned the entire campaign upside down. Then, just today, he announced that there was nothing of consequence and that FBI's conclusions from last summer remained in place. Thanks, Comey. None of this has been helpful.
The Honeymoon Will Be Short
While I think Clinton will eke out a win on Tuesday, who ever wins will enter the Oval Office as grievously wounded figure. Both will be dogged by the kind of pseudo-scandal and sleaze that hung over them as candidates. Neither will enjoy the post-election honeymoon often referred to as the First 100 Days in which big pieces of their agendas will be favorably viewed by the country and legislators on Capitol Hill. Instead, expect that 100 Days to be closer to 100 Hours.
No comments:
Post a Comment