Keywords
or Terms: Hillary Clinton; Bernie Sanders; Donald Trump; Runaway Victories; American
National Politics; Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina; Republican Party Spectrum;
US Congressional Power-brokers; Political Acumen; Political pressure Groups;
Political vs Non-Political experience; Politico-economic-socio variables; Conventional
forces in Europe and Asia; Ready on the first day
The campaign strategy of Hillary Rodham Clinton must have
changed several times since the onset of the 2016 primaries and caucuses. But
it has also had some consistency when it comes to victories and accumulation of
delegates after the close call at the Iowa caucuses, driven by three major
factors: reflective and resonating campaign messaging that minority groups can
identify with, especially in the States of Nevada and South Carolina; the redirection
of campaign messaging that a growing number millennial can consider as speaking
to their concerns and welfare, a group suspected as having been cornered by her
arch rival, Bernie Sanders; and, the active participation of her surrogate
husband (President Bill Clinton) on the campaign trail, for and on her behalf. Prior
to the recent victories in the States of Nevada and South Carolina, Hillary’s
campaign and potential of a runaway victory against Bernie Sanders were on shaky
grounds, considering his outing in Iowa and New Hampshire caucus and primary. By
tomorrow, Super Tuesday, there would only be twelve more primaries that can
change the direction of the competition between Hillary and Bernie for the Democratic
Party flag bearer’s position. More than anyone may conceive right now, the
global political leadership may be determined on Super Tuesday. If Hillary wins
a huge number of delegates more than Bernie and there is no indictment from any
federal security agency, including the CIA and the State Department on the
issues of the State Department’s email fiasco, there is every likelihood to believe
the next President of the United States would be a female.
Most compelling lately is the revolutionary uprising of an outsider
at the Republican Party spectrum of American National Politics, Donald Trump.
For those who question the assessment of the possibility of having the first
female President occupying the White House oval office, current assessment or postulation
is not based on whimsical thoughts or doubts regarding the ability of Donald
Trump to win the Presidency of the United States; rather, it has to do with the
reality of who is best qualified to hold the global political leadership, which
by default, has fallen on the laps of the only standing supper power on earth,
since the fall of the USSR. Under Hillary Clinton, a former US Senator and Secretary
of State, the nation would be in good hands; however, with Donald Trump, the
nation would be experimenting with a business man with little astute capability
of understanding the intricacy of political power brokerage, one that is
mostly acquiesce with political leadership
of experience, coming out of years of hobnobbing with national and
international leaders, Congressional and State legislators, and an active participation
in grassroots politics, with ear to the ground regarding what is practical and or
workable in American Politics and legislative process.
Politics and political hegemony comes not strictly from running
a campaign to be elected a party’s primary flag bearer; rather, it comes from
knowing how to better work with US Congressional power-brokers and influence peddlers;
it comes from what it takes to push legislation through the two chambers of US
Congress without losing a sleep, or steam rolling the difficult process or
terrain of sponsoring, writing and passing a preferred bill that you can sign
into law; it comes from understanding how to dine with adversaries, enemies and
naysayers and getting your way; while accepting shellacking failures or
humbling short comings of inability to push through legislation that you are committed
and truly believes can make a difference in the lives of the people. These types
of skill and zeal are not synonymous with what you have in corporate boardrooms
or as a private enterprise CEO, no matter how you look at the responsibilities
of the Office of the Presidency. At the same time, it is not totally impossible
or unfeasible for a Chief Executive Officer to get to speed with the duties and responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency; however, there are some fine
items of political wheeling and dealing that are almost, if not automatically essential
to make things happen; call them essential tools for bringing about change when
you are in that office. They are indispensable political acumen and necessities
that make effecting change in the halls of congress, across political parties
and among political pressure groups, possible. These skills are different from
what it takes to turn a business around or manage bankruptcies with a team of
well-paid lawyers and accountants; or build a golf course or tower in the
middle of Manhattan or nowhere, Abu Dhabi, Nevada or Canada.
Comparatively, it is clear from Bush and Obama’s
Administrations that an occupier of the White House oval office must understand
what is best for formulating national security and international relations
policies; who best to listen to when incurring into foreign wars; how to
recognize the pitfalls for passing a new bill like the Obamacare or taking out
an America’s enemy like Osama Bin laden, and how best to avoid pitfalls that may
ground great intentions; including, seizing opportunities as they present
themselves on several fronts, politico-economic-socio, once in the office of
the Presidency. It entails being mindful of mischievous close political advisers and associates within the executive and legislative branches of government. Thus, if you could negotiate a deal to build a huge business enterprise,
and perhaps if you are able to bring people together around a table to build up
on an idea, you may be able to accomplish some of these tasks; however, you
cannot always count or depend on initial commitments from legislators on
proposed legislation, even though those legislation were initially advanced
by leaders of your own political party. In addition, you cannot completely depend
or rest on party-affiliates disposition on advanced public policy ideas, once
they interact with their party’s leadership. This is why politics is a
different animal from business negotiations. In politics, you never have a
permanent enemy but permanent interests; you never have a complete loyalty or
commitment of your party members, not to talk of opposition party members;
rather, you have to learn the intricacy of buying time, robbing shoulders, back
slapping and giving and taking in the dying hours of a deadline, to achieve any
success; you constantly have to remain focused, dowsing political fires as new
ones are being started, peeling off opposition party loyalties from lawmakers,
untying long and outstanding political friendships and relationships, plodding and convincing party faithful and uncommitted
antagonists to buy into your leadership and ideas; it is a task that requires
high tempo and energy to go through a long stretch of huddles and non-starters;
it is a world so treacherous, political philosophers have termed them, a world
of incongruousness in a congruent world and dispositions.
On one hand, you want to recognize that it takes more than
two, three or four meetings to resolve thorny political issues. You want to
recognize there are risks inherent in immediate and imminent resolutions of the
ever dynamic and repeated national problems. There is a danger to assume legislative
members of your party are always going to be agreeable to your administration’s
positions. Furthermore, there may be a reason to invest your personal wealth in
seeking an office, or raising a lot of political campaign donations and promising
benefactors ambassadorship or foreign attaché positions; however, you cannot
assume that because everyone is saying you are embodiment of business success
will readily translate to an agree-ability of all legislators or party leadership
and membership in US Congress, to build a great, … great wall on the southern US
border and making the Mexicans pay for it. An aggressive or narcissistic
character may be good for show business; however, political leadership in
government would hardly go very far, because of the nature of politics and
political terrain when you are head of government or President of the United
States. Finally, doubting the heroism of Senator John McCain or devaluing Heidi
Klum as no longer ten, or lambasting all Muslims as terrorist and Mexicans as
racists are hardly going to make America great again as promised during an
election into the office.
A President of the United States or anyone seeking that office,
must appreciate the complexities of our union, including the diversities in
race, color, religion, national origin, sexuality, veteran’s status, among others.
Offering yourself as a candidate for the oval office means you are less interested
in self-aggrandizement or unnecessary bigotry that may color your disposition on
several national issues. As a candidate and potential winner, you must take
into account sensitivity of issues that concerns the welfare of a plurality of
our people, including ensuring abstinence from the use of oratory that offends; and abasing any action or statement that dispossess or
impinges the civil rights of a greater number of members’ resident in the union.
You cannot fail to call to question hate groups or deny understanding the
categorization of statements from leaders of White Supremacist, neo-Nazis or nationalists and
expect to be afforded a benefit of doubt regarding some issues that impact the
lives of minority groups within the union.
An aspirant for the office of US Presidency needs to understand
the intricate nature of domestic and national security issues, some of which s/he
has no control over. Creating a defensive and proactive strategies are
essential duties of the position, demonizing one segment of the population over
another is hardly wise or prudent; and, more importantly, having the patience
of a vulture, is just as important as making things happen in the long haul,
when you may not be able to attest to continued support and loyalty, even from
members of your party and households. Along with changes in major alliances,
you must expect dissenters within the party and expect regional problems that
can derail great intentions. Having victory with an insurgent political
campaign is just a tip of the iceberg, channeling populist anger to coalesce
votes and offering somewhat condescending comments regarding why running for the
US presidency is nasty and tough, are just the beginners, wait until you occupy
the office, you’ll really know what multi-polar and regional disgruntlement mean
and how they can upturn well laid out political initiatives; and how all these
may inadvertently impact the process and challenges of governing a nation of
about three hundred and seventy million people. These are part of the qualities America is looking for in our presidents or aspirants; this is why Hillary's credential far outstrip either Trump, Cruz or Rubio.
On the first day in office, you will be formulating strategies
to make the country work, the same time you are dealing with briefing and notification
of the impact of significant reduction of conventional forces in Europe and
Asia. Just as the euphoria of your victory is settling in, you’ll be confronted
with multiple issues and scenarios that are out of sphere of your influence,
which money cannot buy or resolve, yet asking for your immediate attention because
inattention may result in life or death situation. You will be faced with
challenges that are somewhat above your political capability or financial security, because of your
inexperience in the intricacies of political give and take; or, underestimated ignorance of what it really takes to be president of the greatest democracy on earth and a global leader that all member nations of the UN can look to and respect. Your challenge is to
formulate newer strategies or thoughts to deal with dangerous and unpredictable
predicament of the moment, without forming new adversaries or probable
reduction in the influence of the office with supporters, allies and
antagonists.
The most feasible manifestation, is to expect the unacceptable.
This is why prior executive political experience, though not always a sin-qua-non, comes in rather handy for the office
of the US Presidency. You may not postulate that your executive experience as a
former CEO has completely prepared you for the task of the oval office, although it maybe helpful. Corollary, you must now remember that the US presidency is not a position you can allocate
budget resources without communicating and taking advice from a number of
government agencies and advisers; a challenge, you are not accustomed to as a CEO
or now, Presidential neophyte. Unlike Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, you
will have more difficulties restructuring State or Defense Department’s budget;
thus, there is a ticking time bomb potentially associated with your
inexperience in political office and this is why the political outsider label or emblem, is
more of a handicap, and may have you on the defensive for a while, until you
are able to get up to speed with the task of the office. Welcome to the new reality, being a US President is more than winning the office by drawing energy and support from the dark side or far right nationalists!
No comments:
Post a Comment