Keywords or Terms: Hillary Clinton;
Donald Trump; Bernie Sanders; Campaign Strategies; US Presidency; Founder’s
Vision and Mission; Reagan Conservatism, FDR New Era Deal; November General Election;
Unifiers; Anglo-Saxons; Minority Groups; Paul Grover; Ideological Spectrum; and
Political Preferences
In the context of
seeking support for 2016 White House oval office, the Democratic Party and
Republican Party front runners, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, have obvious
differences regarding how to curry support of voters. The differences between
both candidates may be found in the campaign strategies and styles. While
Hillary Clinton is pitching campaign messages and seeking a heterogeneous
combination of voters, mainstream and minority groups alike, Donald Trump has
remained monolithic, catering majorly to the taste and preferences of White
Anglo-Saxons, None Hispanic groups, that have helped him survive the fierce
Republican Party competition for party nomination. Further, while it appears
Hillary Clinton has been working harder in her campaign to corner voters from broader
and wider dragnet of initial supporters and potential supporters, Bernie
Sanders’ hardliners, Donald Trump has run into a road block of some sort, due to
his unconventional campaign strategy that appears to stir emotional racial
animosity in an already divided nation on many issues; including, political
preferences on where America should head after the general election of 2016.
Both strategies have
been discussed by political strategists, party stalwarts, international and
national observers and the press, from different, if not multiple angles and
each discussant’s preferences and prejudices have defined the microcosm of such
discussions in the larger context of finding that ideal strategy that works,
that strategy that amasses enough electoral college and probably votes to make
a difference for either candidate’s ambition and election into the office of US
president. What probably been exempted from discussions, is the ideological
spectrum from which either campaign strategy for support and votes may survive,
even among groups that are said to be completely opposed to either candidacy at
this time. You are probably aware of some minority Republicans who even after
being denigrated by Donald Trump’s candidacy, vow they will nonetheless vote
for him, no matter what? You are also privileged to know about stalwart Super
delegates who are completely dethroned to the candidacy of the former US Secretary
of State.
On the surface, there
is hardly anything wrong with the divergent strategies pursued by either front-runners
and presumptive candidates of the two major American Political Parties in this
current cycle of campaigning for the White House. Donald Trump has been
successful in pivoting to low-information White Anglo-Saxons with some
nationalistic flair in the Republican Party and has been successful in rallying
support for his brand, except from establishment Republicans throughout the
party’s primaries and caucuses. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, appears to
be avoiding divisive campaign messaging, pitching an image of a unifier, one
seeking a plurality of electoral college and voters who share her conviction
and respect for individual differences, including respect for other
socio-economic political differences that appear to divide the American voting
landscape in the current cycle of presidential campaign. Whether either strategy
is going to pan out for either front runner candidate from the two major
American Political Parties, no one can tell at this time; only the results of
the general election in November, 2016, will inform either candidate and
America, especially the political parties’ big Whigs, the efficacy of these
strategies.
The heterogeneity of supporters’
sort by Hillary Clinton, offer her the opportunity to be flexible in her
campaign messaging, including advertisement and surrogates sent around the
country to advance her candidacy for the White House. The choice to alienate,
to insult and often differentiate Americans, including proposals and
advancement to build a huge wall to divide the North from South America,
probably have their own pitfalls; a couple that Mr. Trump and his campaign
strategists probably are ignoring with the blind faith or commitment to an
overwhelming, if not somewhat nationalistic messaging and fascist doctrinaire
that pitches the right against the left in America; conundrums that appear to
speak for why America is so “completely disadvantaged” by some of her trade
deals, and the contemplation of a so-called invasion of undocumented immigrants
that is grinding American Economy, depressing labor wages and salaries,
undercutting the exceptionalism of America, and preventing the nation from
being number one in all realms of life – the America First Doctrinaire!
Though still in early
stages, the competition between the Republican Front runner and Democratic
Front runner, alludes to the resilience of party’s philosophical differences.
The uniqueness of ideological campaign effort and how either represents the
plurality of party’s position may be found in the current philosophical
differences rather than old age tested philosophy of either party. The inherent
success of either candidate’s campaign strategy within their relative parties,
that is, the reasons why either of their strategy worked to reach the party’s
flag bearers’ status so far, may not completely be adduced to a conviction in
the invisible hand of Adam Smith, as articulated by Paul Grover in his principles
of Reagan’s Conservativeness: freedom,
faith, family, sanctity and dignity of human life, American exceptionalism, the
Founders’ wisdom and vision, lower taxes, limited government, peace through
strength, anti-Communism, and belief in the individual, for the Republican de
facto nominee; nor FDR New Deal legislative preference – the three R’s: relief
for those out of work; Recovery – working with business and national economy;
and, Reform- making changes to American institutions, to enhance the
socio-economic and political status of the mass as advanced by the campaign of
the Democratic front runner or de facto nominee. A campaign of exclusion as
pedaled by Donald Trump smacks of any American exceptionalism, wisdom, vision
and belief in individualism. Contemplations and connectivity of Hillary
Clinton’s campaign efforts, said to be aligned with the successes and progress
of the Obama’s Administration, are hardly pivoted to separate the American
populace; corollary, neither are they pivoted or announced as the end all
solution to resolving all the challenges of America’s economy, nor shaping
American institutions to deliver the required progress sought by some extreme
left. While respective cases may be made for either Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton’s campaign strategies, some major tenets of their campaign strategies
deviate from the complete principles of Reagan Conservatism, or FDR New Era
Deal, respectively.
Because there is no
complete affirmation and identification of Donald Trump’s campaign for the
White House oval office with Reagan Conservatism; nor, Hillary Clinton’s 2016
campaign with FDR New Era Deal, the precise scenario for the general election
completion or transition from Obama’s Administration to either Trump’s or
Clinton’s Administration after 2017, remains hazy. Should Donald Trump emerge
as the New President of the United States, there is a serious danger that his
alienation doctrine and or nationalistic campaign promises may lead to abuse of
power. The ‘dog whistle’ politics that is synonymous with Trump’s pronouncement
that US District Judge Gonzalo-Curiel’s Mexican-heritage may put him at odds in
the adjudication of alleged fraud in administration of Trump’s University, is a
case in point. A future “American President” who sees bias in anything and
suspicious of anyone that is not in mainstream America, is a recipe or cursor
to dictatorship or totalitarianism. Likewise, leadership considered as not
completely trustworthy, suffers the potential of divided loyalty, between those
who believe that the future president will do what is right at all times; and
those, who believe that, her energies and direction of reform may be plague
with cover-ups, a la private email server experience with the US State
Department. Indeed, most conservative Republicans do not believe in Trump’s
presidency and continue to thumb their nose on the possibility of him becoming
the US President after the general election. Likewise, some Bernie Sanders’
Democrats profess bewilderment or apathy toward Hillary Clinton’s campaign for
the White House oval office; and if they had their way, they will walk away
from her in the general election. Thus, support for either major party flag
bearer is gray, with either scrambling that their offering and or campaign proposal
and strategy will top the tickets, inauspiciously avoiding the subtle wrath and
displeasures with their candidacy, even within their respective party.
At the core of Donald
Trump’s campaign for 2016 White House is the choice to protect the privileges
and rights of mainstream Anglo-Saxon White Male, denouncements of any minority
groups on bases of race, sex and religion, misogynistic caricature of females
and unusual hostilities towards anyone or anything associated with undocumented
immigrants. Since the kick-off of his campaign in June, 2015, Mr. Trump has
remained detached from anyone or any country that does not buy into his ‘America-First’
doctrinaire. In many respect, this is a generational shift – Reagan Republican
Doctrine succeeded by Trump Fascists Doctrinaire – a revolution that even
conservative Republicans find abhorring and are scrambling to protect the
integrity of their party from; one that continues to make establishment Republicans
question themselves, where did we go wrong? As Trump triumphant in polls during the
Republican primary and caucuses, many Establishment Republicans, strategists
and powerbrokers, questioned the direction of his candidacy and the implication
for the image of their party. Once again, whether all these are prudent
considerations, no one can tell until the general election results in November.
The
philosophical campaign strategy between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders has
not been daunting as exemplified with the ‘No-Trump’ versus ‘Pro-Trump’ group
within the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton accommodates the reflections of
Bernie Sander’s Ultra-liberal policies in the Democratic Party 2016 platform;
and or, defaults to making Bernie Sanders his Vice-president, she stands to
gain a lot from the homogeneity or coming together of formerly wide spectrum of
supporters’ values and positions. The last remaining symbol of probable
disunity between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, will likely
pass and either Democratic Party’s competitor’s aspirations for America
acknowledged as the way forward for America. These are the realities of current
campaign for the White House oval office; the philosophical short coming in the
Democratic Party can be abridged; and those in the Republican party, while
amendable stands the risk of having a new party leader who likes to do things
his own way, walk alone and dictate to people around him what will obtain. This
is a very huge challenge; yes, both current supporters and non-supporters of
Mr. Trump’s campaign may come together to ensure victory for the Republican
party in November, but both stand the risk of having a fascist, xenophobic and
misogynist leader who hardly listens to advice from people around him.
The
complexities of getting the government out of the way of the American people as
espoused by Reagan, may hardly be negotiated with opponents or advisors to a
“President Trump.” The place of conviction in how best to get the government
out of the way of the people, and who is to complete this task in government;
or, how to go about building a huge wall between North and South America; and
or, deporting about eleven million undocumented immigrants in America, may
become a logistical nightmare, which only an invented brand of the brown
shirts, will have to complete to keep the promise of Republican candidate,
Donald Trump. On the other hand, the need for institutional reforms, a major
aspect of the New Deal philosophy of the Democratic Party, is going to need
collective commitment, loyalty, energies and trust in whatever bureaucratic
reforms executed, including recasting the trade pacts to override current
prejudices of likely failures of the pacts so far, creating livable wages and
providing jobs that are relevant in an information age, enhancing exiting
healthcare reform to correct for the abnormality found in some aspect of
OBAMACARE after the implementation, reforming the judicial system so it becomes
race neutral in administration, devoting time to equality of opportunities for
all Americans, major and minority groups, including the LGBT community and any
other hitherto disenfranchised groups. These are the challenges ahead for
America in its decision to choose the next leader of the free world, the President
of the United States of America.
Age and
experience in party politics is a differentiating factor in 2016 general
elections. Hillary Clinton’s sixty-eight years’ life has been spent in a
combination of private and public service as she served as the first lady,
senator policy guru and practice of the law. Mr. Trump’s sixty-nine years of
life is a wealth of business experience, with some sporadic hiccups or failures
in bankruptcy, which may become an ill-omen when it comes to being steady,
reflective, and disciplined in managing and talking about the affairs of the
state. Not many decision-making responsibilities can be easily delegated with
respect to foreign affairs issues, where ultimate decisions regarding urgent development
across the globe, rest with the office of the presidency. The allure or
penchant for being direct, result-oriented, practicality in negotiations with
US Congress and sensitivity to protecting the rights of the judiciary to
adjudicate, rights of religious minorities to feel welcomed, and right of women
to be appreciated as part of nation building, are paramount on the way ahead. Further,
any new leader with substantially less experience in dealing with the sausage
making tactics in passing bills before the US Congress, especially in domestic
matters, may suffer a backlash in moving forward with many of his or her proposals
and ambition for campaigning for US presidency. In addition, there is going to
be a need for a leader who is able to lead the country ahead without a second
thought regarding where he stands on a number of national issues. America needs
a leader with the wherewithal to champion a new excellence in the information
age, without being prejudicial of everyone that hardly looks like him or her.
This is why it is essential, that all voters vote in the general election; no
one can say this request is demanding too much from any American.
In the
near term before the general 2016 elections, either major party candidate and campaign
strategies are free to change or fine-tuned; and, proposals and declarations with
respect to campaign efforts refocused to meet the demand of wooing a sizeable generality of electoral
college. Donald Trump’s unconventional campaign strategy for the US Presidency
that is consistently pushing boundaries of racial, sex and religious harmony,
may garner a popular vote and fail to meet the desired number of electoral
college. The goal is to have enough and required number of electoral college
and hopefully, a popular number of votes that are commensurate with the
electoral college to achieve the credibility or political capital to execute a
dynamic presidency. If neither Clinton’s campaign or Donald Trump’s, is able to
garner enough votes, it is imperative that either number of electoral college
support of the candidacy heralded into office, is so preponderance
that it overwhelms or upset any deficiency in popular votes; to be able to
challenge the naysayers and probably, extinguish the current fratricides
disputes that has engulfed establishment Republicans and the rank and file; or,
current disagreements between ‘Feel the Bern’ group and Hillary Clinton’s (H)
diehards, there has to be a clear electoral college victory and choice.
LC #220 Whitman's Cardboard Butterfly
No comments:
Post a Comment