But the race has been thrown wide open. Marginal candidates,
who at the start of the campaign were given no chance to figure in the vote
count, have opened up a commanding lead. Bush is a hopeless laggard in a
crowded Republican field, and on the Democratic side Clinton is battling a
spirited challenge by a quixotic, septuagenarian, New York-born Democratic
Socialist.
The country is still sharply divided, but the division along
party lines has been superseded by a new split between traditionalists and
revolutionaries.
This new division threatens to change both America and the
world. In particular, if a revolutionary is elected in November, Ukraine could
lose in its life-and-death military standoff with Russia, and Putin could
emerge victorious – provided his Russia can hold out for another year against
the combined pressures of tumbling oil prices, international sanctions,
misguided government policies and stunning corruption. And Putin’s victory, in
turn, would probably mean the collapse of the post-World War II international
order.
For the past seventy years, Washington has pursued an extremely
active foreign policy the purpose of which was to maintain a strong
Transatlantic partnership and to support
international economic and political stability. At the end of the war,
it developed a set of rules and founded a number of international institutions
which became the basis for a relatively peaceful – and quite prosperous – period of human history.
America has made its share of mistakes and suffered several
defeats – for instance, in the wars in Indochina and the Middle East – and has
come in for lots of criticism. However, on the whole, the American Century has
been remarkably successful. The United States helped rebuild Europe and Japan
after the World War II, prevented South Korea from falling to the communists,
curbed Soviet expansion and eventually won the Cold War. Throughout this time,
every American presidents, regardless of party affiliation, ideology and
priorities, remained committed to maintaining the world order – not least
because the country was its primary beneficiary.
George W. Bush and his neocon advisors went to war in the hope
of righting the Middle East and bringing democracy to the Muslim world; Barack
Obama rejected Bush’s militarism and unilateralism, but didn’t alter America’s
role in the world. On the contrary, he responded to challenges created by the
rise of China by pivoting US policy toward Asia.
But American politics are changing, and post-World War II
policy continuity may be coming to an end. On the Republican side, the leading
candidates, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, are right-wing radicals; the
three of them collectively have the support of 65% of likely primary voters. On
the Democratic side, another radical, Bernie Sanders, is still behind, but he’s
surging while Clinton’s numbers are slipping.
It has become received wisdom that Trump’s entry into the
Republican race exploded the political process and upsetting the early
calculations. However, Trump merely tapped into a radical revolt against
conventional politics. Starting to brew back in 1980, it came into being with
two events in 2008 – the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate
and the election of an African-American president. In the seven years since its emergence, the
right-radical Tea Party movement, which has been mistakenly characterized as
conservative, has been able to shape US Congress and state governments across
the nation.
In the 2012 presidential campaign, the radicals in the
Republican Party flexed their muscle for the first time, refusing to nominate a
conventional candidate and until the last minute supporting strange birds such
as Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
Obama, while promising radical change to his supporters, proved
to be a fairly conventional politician. His policy initiatives have been
centrist, and his marquee accomplishment, Obamacare, had originally been a
Republican proposal.
However, during his time in office, political Washington has
been anything but conventional. The US government has been effectively
paralyzed, as Congress passed almost no laws and held up vital executive
appointments. Instead, Congress kept voting to repeal the health care law,
which it has done more than sixty times.
Faced with such obstructionism, the administration stopped
proposing any important initiatives altogether. Its inaction on the
international front, which has frustrated many of America’s allies, also at
least in part stems for the Republican’s determination to sabotage any of
Obama’s actions.
While it is true that this kind of scorched-earth politics has
been motivated by personal dislike of Obama (and a sizeable dose of racism),
the radicals are in opposition not only to the president or the Democrats, but,
importantly, to the establishment wing of the Republican party, as well. So
much so that analysts have been calling this situation a civil war within the
party.
So far, the radicals have been more visible on the right, while
the Democrats have generally been a party of continuity. This may change in
this election, as Sanders taps into the deep reservoir of their disaffection.
Symptomatically, political observers have noted a considerable overlap between
those who vote for Trump and for Sanders – which, based on the differences in
their political platforms and personalities would seem inconceivable.
The election of a radical president will mark a radical change
in America’s policies. The greatest change will be seen at home, but it will
spell an inevitable turn inward, too. A key aspect of this change could be
diminished interest in defending the post-World War II order in Europe and lack
of willingness to confront Russia. Trump, in particular, has already praised Vladimir Putin and Putin has expressed his support for Trump. Even though Cruz, like most
Cuban-Americans, is a dyed-in-the-wool anti-communist, there is little doubt
that Putin will get on well with him, considering Putin’s stellar record with
European right-wingers and neo-Nazis.
As to Sanders, whatever his view of Putin, his first priority
will be reforming the United States, which will require an isolationist
position and a reduction in America’s commitments abroad.
The result of any of those candidates getting to the White
House could be the largest geopolitical realignment since World War II and
heightened risks for everyone.
The primaries will start in February and the surging radicals
may choke once voters actually go to the polls. Americans may still opt for the
safety of political status quo. The Democrats are still likely to nominate
Clinton, and Bush, Chris Christie or John Kasich might yet come from behind to
capture the Republican nomination. Those candidates will keep America’s
international commitments intact. But their victory is becoming less and less
likely – especially if the early January stock market swoon worsens and the
global economic malaise spreads to the United States.
