WITH the United States (U.S.) presidential election a mere month away, support for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is pouring in from all quarters and most notably, some unlikely ones. This is not the normal election for many reasons, among which is the Republican candidate Donald Trump and what he represents in the eyes of the public, the U.S., and farther afield. There is concern and real fear of a Trump presidency and what it will mean for country and international relations. The Washington Post Editorial (30th September) in its critical analysis of the candidate titled the ‘The clear and present danger of Donald Trump,’ warns that “It would be reckless not to consider the damage Mr Trump might wreak. Some of that damage would ensue more from who he is than what he does. His racism and disparagement of women could empower extremists who are now on the margins of American politics, while his lies and conspiracy theories could legitimise discourse that until now has been relegated to the fringe. But his scope for action should not be underestimated, either.”
The interest attached to this election has also seen external governments and influential figures making known their view(s) on the candidates and preferred choice to hold the world’s most powerful office, and that candidate is not Trump. International allies were never this forward in U.S. domestic politics. An exception to this however is Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is playing a politics in U.S. affairs that has the semblance of Cold War influencing and positioning, though it is fair to say his opinion was sought by a member of the U.S. media on the candidates.
In the case of Trump, the U.S. society seems welcoming to have the support of external forces, including heads of government warning against his presidency. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in his address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, subtly made known his discomfort, citing an approach to immigration policy touted by Trump, even though his name was not called. President Barack Obama has also been using the global stage to influence thinking in a similar direction. In addressing the UN Refugees and Migrants Summit, he expressed displeasure with treating with the crisis and immigration by building “walls.” This is a clear reference to Trump’s campaign pledge to build a wall on the U.S./Mexican border, and an aspect of his immigration policy.
The U.S. newspapers have historically played a role in endorsing candidates, and it is something candidates and their campaigns look forward to during the political hustings, conscious of the influence and scope of the media. In this area there has been occurring from unlikely quarters, support being thrown behind Clinton.
The Arizona Republic Editorial Board (27th September) which has always endorsed Republican candidates broke from tradition to endorse Clinton, calling her “the only choice to move America forward.” The USA Today which has never endorsed a candidate came out against Trump, in an editorial (30th September) declaring him “unfit for the presidency.” The New York Times on 1st October ran an incisive story on Trump’s taxes, making known that he has paid no federal taxes for almost two decades. Trump’s campaign has reacted by accusing the media of acquiring the document illegally, though Trump’s sue-sensitive disposition has not seen him threatening to sue. It should be said however, that Trump’s non-payment of federal taxes is not illegal, but mere capitalising on what is called the “loopholes” in the tax system to avoid paying. What it raises however is the question of morality and a system that will allow the rich to escape, but holds the poor accountable, which the public seems incensed about.
The concern with a Trump presidency is multifaceted. It ranges from his paucity of knowledge on critical issues such as governance, policies, and global issues to his outlook on ethnic relations, terrorism, and immigration, to that of reliance on attacking the person not the issue, positions he seems comfortable retaining. And where the media, to some extent facilitated a campaign that opted more for optics, dumbing down and reality-type politics given the ratings and sales it has attracted, now the proverbial genie has escaped the bottle and the election draws nigh, concern as to the possibility is hitting home.