The GOP convention in Cleveland, which has crowned Donald Trump as a candidate in the presidential elections next fall, has just finished. It seems incredible that even in Europe we are witnessing an endorsement or objection phenomenon towards one candidate overseas or another, often without having actual knowledge and relying only on their media image.
This was the case for Reagan, wrongly seen as the cowboy of the White House, this is also Trump’s case today, who is depicted as a populist who could turn the US into a new “world powder keg”. Given that the Republican candidate’s statements aim at the American voters’ “belly”, recalling both the law and order approach, which was at the basis of Nixon’s fortune and which is stressed by Rudolph Giuliani’s support of this candidate and by the references to the setting of deregulation of the economy and the input to Regan’s free exchange, positions on foreign policy are of objective points common sense, such as search of a new agreement with Putin’s Russia to mitigate the conflict born in the last few years and the renegotiation of existing trade treaties.
These arguments, however, are rarely discussed when referring to his rival. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is portrayed almost as if it were the bulwark of civilization compared to the drifting populism embodied by Donald Trump when, in fact, numerous shadows stretch from the candidate who won the Democratic primary election.
Truth to be told, even some authoritative progressive journals, such as Micromega, begin to analyze the figure of the democratic candidate, but many people still do not see a detail concerning Hillary Clinton’s political education and her actual position on “hot topics” on the agenda of the US government.
When we talk about Reagan, many people ignore that the 40th president of the United States was politically born in the bosom of the Democratic Party. He remained inside the party till the 50’s, when he thought that Republican candidates, Eisenhower, then Nixon, were the most suitable people to lead the country during the years of the Cold War, but it was only with the support offered to the candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, who officially passed to the GOP, the party with which he first obtained the post of governor of California and then president of the Union.
Hillary Clinton, on the contrary, was politically born among Republicans, exactly with the Goldwater’s electoral campaign where he worked as a volunteer in the election committee of the Republican candidate.
Goldwater’s ideas, in fact, are clearly visible in the attitude of the candidate of the Democratic Party. It does not matter much that already at the end of the 60s, she decided to join the Democrats, her background is visible in all of her political history.
Perhaps, Goldwater’s liberal and libertarian approach has been blurred over the years, although in Clinton’s positions concerning economy do not show any of the regulatory and interventionist ideas they have, however, characterized the outgoing Bureau Obama indeed the idea of entrusting a position with regard to her husband Bill, who inspired some of the measures that closed the era of State intervention as a legacy of Roosevelt’s New Deal, might indicate a return to a more attention paid to the market, which was also possible to detect by the criticism that the “liberal” candidate to the democratic nomination Bernie Sanders had raised several times.
What derives directly from the ideas of renewal that animated the GOP in the mid-60s are libertarian and pro-choice positions on ethical issues and interventionism in foreign policy, exacerbated by the subsequent growth inside the Democratic Party, which has always used this banner.
One cannot ignore Clinton’s actions during her tenure as Secretary of State, far more uncompromising and interventionist than Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice under President Bush, especially when it came to the management of the so-called Arab spring, and to the opposing Russia.
A careful observer might notice the proximity of Hillary Clinton’s positions to those of the Neocon or more liberal interventionists inside the Democratic Party. Certainly, a figure outlined this way is rather different from what the mainstream press describes, especially in Italy, as opposed to the “bad” Trump.
The question that arises spontaneously is the following: “Is Trump really the danger to the world order or is it Clinton’s victory that might become the source of much greater geopolitical risks?”
It is not simple to answer this question and this round of the American election, whether we like it or not, sees us, Europeans, as mere spectators, might be of much greater significance than the usual partisan supporters that arise whenever the media open the polls on the other side of the Ocean.