I want to put a question on the floor. It’s not a rhetorical question. I genuinely want to see some discussion of it.
Do you think that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is capable of being president of the United States? Or just president of the people who voted for them?
I know what my opinion is. I don’t think either of them has it in them. There’s been lots of happy talk about Hillary Clinton’s ability to “reach across the aisle”, blah, blah, blah but I honestly don’t see how anybody could reasonably believe it. Her negatives have been too high for too long and her speeches continue to be highly divisive. Her supporters don’t seem them that way which confirms the point I’m raising rather than contradicting it.
And I see nothing in Donald Trump’s background that suggests that he has the ability to unify the country. My view on Trump is that he sees everything as a negotiation, floats trial balloons, and generally shoots off his mouth. The whines about him are largely hyperventilating. Besides, there will be plenty of checks on the power of a hypothetical President Trump: the Congress, the federal bureaucracy, the media, the nomenklatura of both political parties.
It has not always been so. I sincerely believe that President Obama could have been the president of the United States rather than president of the Democratic Party. He just wasn’t particularly interested in the job.
At his best George W. Bush was president of the United States—see his actions in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 for examples. He was afflicted with very bad judgment and very bad advice from his advisors—both probably the result of ideological blinders.
I could go on but you get the point. I think we’re more divided now that at any time since the American Civil War and the next four years will be worse than the last eight.
I think I don’t agree with your assessment of Clinton. I think the relatively positive reaction of Senate Republicans from her tenure was probably genuine. She learned something from the healthcare debacle, but she is instinctively a sneaky person (secretive if you prefer) that is a character flaw that will dog her, along with (and related to) a reliance on a close group of aides that are probably valued too much for loyalty, and not skills.
I think the Republicans will hold a check in Congress, so she will have to replay her Senate approach. Its not out of the question right now that the Rs hold the Senate. I think what the Bernie supporters fear is what is likely to happen, cross-party deals along neo-liberal lines. What Dave probably fears is that Clinton will find foreign policy to be an outlet for action and Republican support (“Hillary, honey, Senator McCain is here again to see you.”)
What I fear is something stemming from the incongruity at the heart of the Obama coalition, which is that African-Americans have fared worst in the Obama recovery, while evaluating the economy most favorably. I think something will have to give, but I’m not sure what it is, but don’t feel that Clinton would be well-suited to handle it. At a very minimum I can see further hardening of the parties along racial lines.
For me it’s come to a crucial point where it’s less about political party loyalty than it is about determining the direction of the country, the lifestyle, ethics and basic freedoms we wish to sustain.
Do you want the direction to go more towards a socialistic free-for-all, tightly regulated, full of “safe spaces” and walking on egg shells language, with little to none risk-taking, only risk aversion? Or, do you want to maintain a free market capitalism approach with risk-taking ventures involving outcomes of both failure and success, and being able to speak without fear of politicized recriminations? Do we want to be innovators, or do we want to level the playing field so much that creativity and dreams also level off? The spark, so remarkable in the original Americana mind set, was that nothing was either assured nor was anything impossible. Consequently, the theme song of America has always revolved around the individual man/woman becoming the charging unit for whatever capacity they wanted to attain, not the government.
In reference to this election, I see the Hillary Clinton’s mode of governance as being the ultimate engine of big government platitudes and citizen dependency. I also see honesty being overruled by the rationale that liberal orthodoxy must prevail, no matter the means by which that goal is secured. This has been exemplified by the countless scandals that been minimized and equated to non-scandals in the Obama administration, only to be followed by the security breeches, failed foreign policies, email hubris revealed at the Dem convention ad nauseam — missteps and ethical lapses that have been sprinkled throughout the public service of Hillary Clinton.
As for Donald Trump, while his business/personal legacy may have many uncomplimentary chapters, I think he will be far more susceptible to watch dog scrutiny, on both the left and right, disarming tendencies for untoward behavior that would not be in the best interest of or hurt the country. Furthermore, investigative reporting from the NYT, Washington Post, and other media outlets would be unleashed and encouraged, rather than tepid or discouraged like it has been under the current democrat regime, to expose flagrant or “dangerous moves a President Trump might be inclined to engage in.
The division and polarization, though, will most likely continue initially under either a Clinton or Trump presidency, until the effects of truly fair governance can be felt by the general populace. This would probably happen when the economy is finally able to grow, meaningful jobs are available, and divisive tactics, involving often times disingenuous push/pulls between class, gender and race, is defused and/or apolitically addressed.
I’m not sure I understand your points about Trump. On the metric you present in this post, I think he is a bit better than Clinton. Perhaps what I really mean is that the Democratic Party currently is worse in its extreme partisanship and divisive rhetoric. I don’t think Trump has described Democrats as his enemies, for instance, and in his own way I think he really does see all Americans as part of his “tribe”. He can’t unify the country because liberals are repulsed by his jingoistic view of America and a lot of conservatives are repulsed by his temperament and values- but in his case I think the disunity doesn’t originate with him, it’s a reaction to him.
Whoever is president if we have another big attack can be president of us all for a short while, especially if you are guaranteeing revenge. Not much of a metric. Note that Bush stopped being president of us all shortly after 9/11. Can anyone be president of us all absent a disaster? I think not. The far left and right media guarantee it is is not happening. The Tea Party made sure it didn’t happen. The Bernie Bros make sure it won’t happen.
Not a chance Trump can do it. Remember that he is actually a worse liar than Hillary. Bloomberg called it right, the guy is a con man. He has no history of showing interest in anyone other than himself, and maybe family (at least until Melania’s rack starts drooping at which time she will get traded in). He doesn’t have it in him to think about issues affecting other people, so he is not going to govern well for all of us. He will cut top marginal rates and eliminate the death tax if he can. Those will help him and his family. Anything else, who know? He will leave that to others.
Hillary? Probably not either. There has been a long effort by the right to make her unacceptable. She has helped them out. That said, it certainly seems possible that she would be willing to triangulate again and be willing to give Republicans some of what they want to get some of what she wants. However, since compromise has been declared anathema by the Tea Party, doubt that works.
Steve
The problem is that the divisions we’re suffering are not merely Republicans vs. Democrats but the forces of the status quo vs the forces of change. Of course Senate Republicans are jake with Hillary. They both represent the status quo.
I think that Hillary Clinton is a sort of reverse Midas with the power to turn gold into lead.
Here’s how I suspect a H. Clinton administration will unfold. First, she’ll appoint a bunch of Democratic Party apparatchiks to cabinet roles, national security positions, and donors (or prospective donors) to ambassadorships. Most are incompetents and liberal interventionists to boot.
She’ll start thinking about re-election. That means she’ll tack left to consolidate her base. She’ll also attempt to preserve President Obama’s legacy. Failure to do so would be seen as disrespectful by blacks, the most important segment of her base. How she reconciles that preservation with opposition to the TPPA I have no idea but she’ll try.
So here’s the short version: tax increases, various benefit programs that won’t provide fiscal stimulus and are by only the most tenuous arguments investments. Even commonsense reforms to the PPACA will be off the table. Increasing violence and social upheaval with a recession in 2017. I think a recession in 2017 is likely regardless of who’s elected.
On the military and foreign policy side, continued truculence towards Russia. Policy WRT China will be incredibly ham-handed. She may give a soprecarga button to Mexico. Stay the course policies in the Middle East and North Africa.
In the past we’ve had a lot more unity or at least comity without having been attacked. The country is very divided.
Very discouraged, Trump University disqualifies one, the Clinton family crime foundation disqualifies the other.
This blog talks about the election, but out in the real world I live in, people seem to be oblivious to any of this.
“The country is very divided.”
Yes, but that is on purpose. The media and pundits promote it. If you work with people across party lines now, you get challenged in the primary, and even lose. Things are gerrymandered enough you don’t have to worry too much about the other party, but you do have to worry about your own team.
Query- What makes you think Hillary won’t do what Bill did while in office? That seems more likely to me. He worked with Congress to pass legislation.
“First, she’ll appoint a bunch of Democratic Party apparatchiks to cabinet roles, national security positions, and donors (or prospective donors) to ambassadorships. ”
How would this be different if Trump were elected and how would it be different than past GOP presidents? (Heckuva job Brownie)
Steve
Any number of reasons. She doesn’t have his charm or outlook. Bill was the fortunate beneficiary through little work of his own of an economic and peace boom. It was a different time. Over the last 8 years we’ve had more dramatic social change than any time since the 60s (which means that social conservatives have about had it). The left wing of the Democratic Party are feeling their oats now and will push their agenda.
I’ve acknowledged a lack of insight into what Trump will or will not do but what intuition I have suggests he won’t be looking to the usual suspects for his appointments—out of spite if for no other reason.
And, yes, that’s what Mitt Romney or John Kasich or Chris Christie would have done mutatis mutandis. That’s one of the reasons the present mess exists. The Washington consensus is bankrupt.
Query- What makes you think Hillary won’t do what Bill did while in office?
Isn’t that the one thing, by virtue of biology, that she actually can’t possibly do?
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
Do you think that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is capable of being president of the United States? Or just president of the people who voted for them?
No. And mostly just the President of people that voted for them. (I’d expect either to both gain and lose people over time in that respect.)