Hobson’s choice in US elections
While the open bigotry of Donald Trump has understandably driven voters, especially minorities and immigrants, into the welcoming arms of Hillary Clinton, she doesn’t inspire excessive confidence either.
Indeed, when it comes to the core agenda, fealty to various special interests, including the military-industrial complex, Israel and Wall Street, differences between the two candidates’ approach are hardly striking.
As the going got increasingly tough over the past few months, Trump has sharpened his bitter, personal attacks on his Democratic rival. From his sexist jibes to taunting Hillary on her health and age to suggesting that she is “puffed up” on drugs and a national security threat, the Republican has tried every dirty trick in the book.
To be fair to Hillary, with the experience of two presidential campaigns and long years in the White House under her belt, she has conducted herself well, remaining cool under fire. Besides, she knows she doesn’t have to try too hard to get Trump when the real estate mogul is doing everything himself to undermine his chances.
There are lessons for everyone in the dramatic rise and fall of Trump’s electoral fortunes. His xenophobic attacks on Muslims, immigrants, women and other minorities may have worked in attracting the following of the predominantly white, conservative Republican base and eventually landing the nomination to the horror of the establishment. Post nomination though, the same cynical, negative approach has seriously clouded his prospects.
The average voter is apparently repelled by his politics of hate targeting minorities, immigrants and women.
The recent damning disclosures, in which he is heard boasting about his numerous conquests and casual sexual excursions, horrifying even the most loyal of Trump supporters, including his own family, may prove the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back. It has been followed by more blasts from the past with several women coming forward to claim he had preyed on them.
These developments have the entire GOP establishment up in arms with top Republicans, including Speaker Paul Ryan, attacking Trump and distancing themselves from his campaign.
All those who think politics of hate pays and is the shortest ride to power ought to learn from Trump’s example.
However, while the idea of Trump as the ‘leader of the free world’ and the holder of the most powerful office on earth gives you heebie-jeebies, anyone who is familiar with Hillary’s past and her hawkish policies would think twice before wishing her on America.
As Ross Douthat argues in the New York Times, the dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump’s authoritarian unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already.
Douthat views her as someone whose “record embodies the tendencies that gave rise to Trumpism in the first place.”
As for the Arab and Islamic world, a Clinton presidency could mean perpetuating the status quo with the famous unquestioning support to Israel further deepening at the expense of justice, freedom and human rights.
She has consistently demonstrated a hawkish streak on foreign policy issues, often outdoing Bill Clinton. As a senator she voted for and passionately supported the neocon wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, along with more than half of Senate Democrats of course. At least, Trump talks sense when he suggests that the Iraq invasion was a disaster. And given an opportunity, Hillary is unlikely to shy away from using her powers as the commander-in-chief to order more such disasters to please the friends in Israel and the arms industry at home.
The recent WikiLeaks disclosures about her lucrative speeches to Goldman Sachs and her extensive interaction with Israel and its friends in high places paint a disturbing picture of a career politician with few scruples.
But it is her equation with Israel that should be a real source of concern to America’s Arab and Muslim allies. The dump of thousands of e-mails hacked from John Podesta’s account shows that powerful campaign donors forced Hillary to take an aggressive pro-Israel stance on key foreign policy issues.
Stuart Eizenstat, a former US ambassador to the EU under Bill Clinton who acted as a liaison between Hillary and Israel, says in e-mail to Hillary’s campaign team: “Prime Minister (Netanyahu) always had a surprisingly good relationship with Hillary; she is easy to work with, and that she is more instinctively sympathetic to Israel than the White House.”
In a letter to billionaire media mogul Haim Saban, the candidate who could replace Obama in the White House in January, vows “to make countering BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel) a priority” if she wins. She is indeed likely to, considering Saban alone contributed $7.5 million to her campaign.
If only some Arab and Muslim donors had done the same, they would have bought into some of this precious clout in years ahead. For there are credible fears that Hillary may prove to be the most pro-Israel president the US has ever had. No wonder this election increasingly looks like getting caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
* Aijaz Zaka Syed is a Gulf based writer. Email: [email protected]
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point of view
