The on-going electoral process in the United States has the atmospherics of a reality show and soap opera but camouflages deep fault lines that could potentially redefine the American way of life after January 2017.
When Donald Trump entered the fray, he was not viewed as a serious candidate. Derisively dismissed by the mainstream media, he is now the presumptive GOP nominee. His political fortunes are on the ascendant. He is running almost neck-and-neck with the likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in overall national poll projections. A sizeable number of voters believe he could be the next President of the United States. Both he and Ms Clinton, however, have very high unfavourable ratings both within their respective parties and nationally.
Mr Trump is challenging not only the conservative values in which the GOP is anchored but, at its very core, Washington and the traditional manner of doing business. Both he and Bernie Sanders, the Democratic challenger who continues in the race, are the 'outsiders' who have tapped into the latent anger against Washington. Ms Clinton, the quintessential 'insider', has to carry the establishment's odium while pretending she too is an 'outsider'.
The surprising and remarkable success of Mr Trump and Mr Sanders in the Republican and Democratic party primaries requires explanation. America's democracy is going through existential angst. This finds expression in the strong sentiment against Wall Street, best articulated by Mr Sanders and his young supporters, and against Washington's manipulative lobbying and crony capitalism, articulated by both Mr Trump and Mr Sanders. In national poll projections, Mr Sanders is favoured to beat Mr Trump by a comfortable margin of 10 per cent points, while Ms Clinton and Mr Trump are almost tied.
There are several dimensions to the existential angst that American democracy is now experiencing. A sizeable number of voters believe that the American dream has bypassed them. Unemployment and inequality are important issues. The Republican candidate, an 'America Firster', wants to make the country great again. His net worth is placed at $10 billion. Not all his business ventures have been successful. He has no experience of public office. The leading Democratic candidate's family foundations made upward of over $350 million in recent years, mostly during the period she was Secretary of State, apart from $115 million she and her husband charged in speaking fees between 2005 and 2015. She has still not been cleared by an on-going FBI investigation. An indictment could still come.
The outcome of the November elections could also profoundly affect other countries. The United States is the world's lead economy, with a GDP of over $17 trillion. The outcome will determine who the CEO of this economy will be for the next four years. Neither Mr Trump nor Ms Clinton would appear to have the economic credentials to steer the world's largest economy. Ms Clinton has said that, if elected, she would entrust major responsibility for this to her husband. Two Clintons for the price of one with all the happy attendant baggage!
How will this play out for the rest of the world?
To what extent do positions adopted and articulated in an electoral process get finally translated into policy later? Not always. The 'deep state' often takes over. The much promised closure of the Guantanamo Bay camp, emphatically promised by Barack Obama, is still around. Conversely, the trade liberalisation advocated by then Secretary of State Clinton is now something she has turned her back on. Trade liberalisation and enhanced imports of manufactured products from China and loss of jobs does not resonate well with an electorate when unemployment is an issue.
Irrespective of who wins the November election, there is widespread agreement that large sections of the population in the United States are deeply dissatisfied and angry. There is little patience for 'business as usual'. That anger translates into negative sentiment against imports, immigrants and Muslims. It is being exploited by the Republican nominee who has talked of imposing 45 per cent tariffs against imports from Mexico and China, and bringing outsourced jobs back by relocating production units in the United States. Whether this is at all feasible or would even by pursued is an entirely different matter.
The nightmare scenario is not confined to trade policy. Mr Trump has also talked of giving nuclear weapons to South Korea and Japan to fortify their position against China. The implications for the existing non-proliferation regime are serious enough, with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, talking of acquiring nuclear weapons if the Iran nuclear deal does not succeed in providing sufficient guarantees against Iran's weaponisation.
Mr Trump of course is both agile and flexible and changes his position(s) depending on his audience. The Pope can be both good and bad on the same day. British Prime Minister David Cameron would have to start addressing trans-Atlantic turbulence should Mr Trump win.
Another manifestation of the abundant anger with foreign policy implications: On May 17, the Senate unanimously passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). This would clear the way for families of victims of terrorism to file lawsuits against Saudi Arabia. Mr Obama will most certainly veto this bill, even though Democrats in the Senate joined in. Saudi Arabia has threatened to withdraw $750 billion in US assets if the bill becomes law.
Mr Trump meanwhile has embarked on a concerted effort to win over women voters and put behind him the outlandish statements he has been making against them. Five months is a long time in an election process and enough to alter fortunes.
The writer is a retired diplomat. The views expressed are personal
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
