‘Sclerotic US political system needs a massive overhaul’

If Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had ran against Republican Donald Trump in Germany, she would have won by a “landslide”, reported Philip Olterman in Berlin in a pre-election article published in The Guardian.

Indeed, pollsters found 86 per cent of German voters, including from right-wing parties, would vote for Clinton.

Germans want a steady hand on the tiller of the global ship of state during the present protracted period of uncertain economic weather.

Since their government functions reasonably well and political system is viable, Germans from all levels of society take a realistic, informed view of the candidates.

By contrast, polls in the US put the two candidates a few points apart.

Trump backers vote from their gut rather than their heads. Their ballots are protest votes against the dysfunctional status quo Washington and a “broken” polity, which, in the minds of Trumpists, is represented by Clinton who has been “first lady” of the Democratic Party since her husband Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

The 2008 and, to a lesser extent, 2012 triumphs of Barack Obama, a little known senator from the mid-western state of Illinois, over tired Republican Party stalwarts were victories for the outsider, for the man who promised “change” but did not deliver “change” because he was not daring enough to seriously challenge Republican partisanship and obstructionism.

For most US voters Obama was a new face.

As the first black man to sit in the Oval Office, he was regarded as extraordinary — and he was extraordinary, even a revolutionary.

The first woman to be put forward for the presidency by one of the two dominant parties, Clinton is, unfortunately, not extraordinary. She is an all too familiar face and boring.

She was the spouse in the White House, a high-profile senator from New York and secretary of state, a constant fixture on the national political scene.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who claims to be a socialist (anathema to US right-wingers), and outspoken Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren could have been extraordinary and exciting Democratic candidates, capable of trumping Trump if Clinton were not running.

Clinton is just as much a symbol of the “broken” US as is Trump.

She represents the establishment, the elite that lives and works inside “the Beltway”, Washington’s ring road.

She stirs resentment because the majority of citizens want change and she is seen as an obstacle to change.

Trump tries to promote himself as an agent of change, but if he wins, he will not effect change any more than Obama could.

Trump will huff and puff, but he will not be able to blow down the doors of fortress Washington.

His every move will be watched and countered by the establishment, including members of his own party.

The establishment is the reason the US is broken and sliding backwards.

Politicians no longer work for the good of the country, but to line their pockets, secure campaign funds and get re-elected.

Trump’s media-paraded faults are not boring, while the saga of Clinton’s rogue e-mails, revived a week ago by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, bore people to tears.

For this reason, Trump may be making a mistake by hyping the e-mail business with the aim of undermining her credibility and trustworthiness. Voters trust neither him nor her.

On both the national and international planes, Trump, who has little understanding of either US or foreign politics and policies, is certain to be not only a disaster, but dangerous.

Ignorant of domestic and foreign issues, he is not interested enough to educate himself by reading studies and briefings, but says he will rely on aides to do the hard work for him before he listens to them.

This means he would not be well enough informed to formulate respectable and responsible policies.

On this region, he warns that Clinton could start World War III due to her hawkishness against Russia and Syria.

Trump is likely to follow the standard US line on Israel, but opposes the ongoing campaign to liberate Mosul from Daesh and seeks to cut foreign aid.

Clinton is a competent politician when dealing with US affairs, but could very well deepen the troubles and traumas of this region as she takes a strong pro-Israel stand and has expressed support for banning all flights over Syria — except for those mounted against Daesh by the US-led coalition, of course.

However, Russia, backed by Iran, will not agree to a “no fly zone”, making it unenforceable.

As far as Israel-Palestine is concerned, she is unlikely to do greater damage than any of her predecessors. She will, simply, do nothing to stop Israel from doing whatever it wants whenever it wants.

She could very well follow the traditional US policy of doing all in her power to protect Israel if it attracts criticism and condemnation.

Obama tried and failed to digress from Washington’s Israel-submissive behaviour; Clinton, who went along as secretary of state,  will not even try.

The sclerotic US political system has been needing a massive overhaul for decades.

The checks and balances no longer operate as they were designed. The two main parties do not collaborate and cooperate to produce policies that serve citizens. Instead, the parties disagree on nearly every issue. 

Republicans, who have been captured by the radical, know-nothing right, seek only to prevent Democrats from advancing their agenda, whether good or bad for the country.

For example, Republicans are rejoicing over the stunning pre-election increase of 100 per cent and more in premiums for health insurance policies taken out by the poor and middle class under Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

It was meant to provide coverage for the millions who cannot afford private insurance or health care. 

The Republican attitude is unconscionable, cruel even, as many families are certain to drop policies they can no longer afford.

Many will find they cannot access health care at a time they most need it. 

When politicians adopt such a destructive line, it is all too clear the system in which they operate is bankrupt.