Summary: The polls show that Election 2016 has divided the people of America but unified America’s elites. That makes it different than realignment elections, such as 1964 and 1972. Expect Clinton to use her power boldly. This is a follow-up to Campaign 2016: America passes into new hands.
Hillary Clinton might go down in US history as the Great Unifier. She has brought under her banner an astonishingly broad alliance of America’s elites, including journalists, academics, Wall Street greedmongers, neocon warmongers, Leftist reformers, and many billionaires. It’s the bipartisanship so long advocated on op-ed pages and in convention speeches.
After-election analysis asks if the President-elect has a mandate from the people. The election that counts has already happened. Clinton has the mandate that matters in America: from our ruling elites. Obama’s ambitions were sated as the first African-American President and historic passage of ObamaCare. I suspect (guess) that Clinton has more appetite and bigger dreams. The powers of the Executive have expanded since Nixon, the last President who boldly used them.
Expect bold actions by Hillary. Here are two sets of predictions. What to expect from Team Hillary in the White House. A look at the likely foreign and domestic policies of HRC.
This will be a surprise to most Americans after mocking the candidates for 18 months during Circus 2016, amused by endless discussion of personalities and sound bites and trivia. We enjoyed ourselves. Our clicks and mega-hours before screens boost corporate media’s profits. On January 21 reality will return, with a vengeance.
Progress: not today but in the future…
Political polarization is the great tool of the 1%. The ease with which they keep us divided shows their fitness to rule and our fitness as proles. Neither progressives nor populists have the power to rule by themselves. Yet it has not been so in the past, when we came together to reform America in the New Deal.
November 7 might mark the nadir for the reform movements in America, with the defeat of Sanders by the Democratic Party establishment and the probable defeat of Trump in November. They hate each other, but in the ashes of defeat they might realize they have some common views. Molly Ball in The Atlantic explained “What Trump and Sanders Have in Common” – – “Probably more than you think.” Others have also seen this, such as Erik Loomis (asst prof of history at U RI) at Lawyer, Guns, and Money talking about “Trade, Trump, and the Debate” — excerpt…
“But let’s not kid ourselves, Trump absolutely crushed her on trade in the early part of the debate. I found it highly disturbing to realize that if I didn’t know that Trump didn’t actually care about this issue and certainly doesn’t care about the workers of the world, I would find myself agreeing with him. NAFTA is indeed the worst trade deal in history. It was a complete disaster for the working class of the United States and it was a complete disaster for the working class of Mexico. Trump also did a great job of connecting recent issues of capital mobility to his statements.”
The barriers between populists and progressives are large, especially the populists’ racism (an affliction of progressives’ past which they have overcome) and nativism. Progressives in turn despise a large fraction of their fellow Americans. As you read these, remember that roughly 45% of likely voters prefer Trump to Clinton.
“…the cult of personality that he’s built at these white trash Triumph of the Will extravaganzas…”
— Paul Campos (prof of law, U CO-Boulder) in an article at Lawyers, Guns, &Money. Campos has either not attended a Trump rally or forgotten Triumph Of The Will; his analogy is absurd.
“Children’s crusade: Trump’s “movement” is a bunch of whiny, frightened infants who can’t handle democracy.”
— Headline of David Masciotra’s article at Salon.
But defeat followed by four (or eight) years of Hillary might broaden their vision. Or they can let our elites continue to gain power, allow inequality to increase, and watch our futile foreign wars burn on — and we will just accept whatever our elites choose to give us. Should they decide to ally, there are scores of ways to politically organize for 2020 and retake America. November 9 is the ideal time to begin.
For More Information
See the NYT’s “More Wealth, More Jobs, but Not for Everyone: What Fuels the Backlash on Trade“, and also Erik Loomis’ follow-up article about “The Losers of Globalization“.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Campaign 2016, and especially these…
- It doesn’t matter if Trump wins. 2016 is already a revolutionary election.
- Why the Outer Party hates Trump and will waste this opportunity for reform.
- Journalists close their eyes as Campaign 2016 reshapes America.
- The best response to Campaign 2016: anger.
8 thoughts on “2016: a historic unification election for America!”
“But defeat followed by four (or eight) years of Hillary might broaden their vision. Or they can let our elites continue to gain power, allow inequality to increase, and watch our futile foreign wars burn on — and we will just accept whatever our elites choose to give us. Should they decide to ally, there are scores of ways to politically organize for 2020 and retake America. November 9 is the ideal time to begin”
I like this!
There are a couple of problems.
The first is that there might not be four years. Clinton & Co might well blunder their way into a war with Russia.
The second is that the progressives, or their chanpions at any rate, are fine with status quo. Musing about trasgender bathrooms on Salon makes for a much more pleasant life than one Assange is living.
@marcelloi, at this rate Obama might accomplish war with Russia before Hillary even wins!
The possibility of war with Russia is wonderful fodder for clickbait headlines (our geopolitical experts solemnly warn of war every month or so), it’s unlikely. The US and Russia have long experience with these brushfires on the frontiers. Neither one wants war over god-forsaken Syria. Neither has any serious stakes in Syria.
Editor, I agree it’s unlikely. But odds that I would have put at, I dunno, perhaps 0.25% a week ago have probably doubled in the last week.
That’s a great point. Considering how bad a war is, even tiny probabilities of conflict should worry us! But, as you note, 0.25% is still small.
That raises an interesting question. How many times have we bumped heads with the Russians/USSR since WWII? A hundred? If so, odds of .25% start to add up to a real risk that we’ll get unlucky.
Obama will not start WW3 in the last week of his presidency. His pattern of choices, bad but not suicidal, is quite clear.
The Clinton gang seem to feature a lot of people who think that history ended in 1989 and they inherited the earth in perpetuity. They might delude themselves into dangerous miscalculation.
Specifically I could see them deluding themselves into thinking they can smash Assad while the Russians are going to watch impotent.