The US Presidential Campaign and Its Impact on the US-Russian Relations

The Evolving Nature of the US Domestic and Foreign Policy

The 2016 presidential campaign keeps bringing surprises–indeed, it would be hard to imagine two candidates more different in both style and substance than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Judging by the primaries, we can expect both quite hot and really mean in tone presidential debates and then, a voting motivated primarily by the considerations against, instead of for, particular candidates. During this cycle, the American electorate turned out sharply divided along the racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, and religious lines with Trump being supported by a traditional white middle class, especially its male half, and Hillary, relying on a coalition of minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, Moslems, feminists and women in general, gays and other sexual minorities). At present, 91% African Americans support Hillary, while Trump gets just 4% percent of the Black vote. Under these conditions, any electoral outcome can have very serious consequences for the US internal stability: this time, the "losing” side can perceive the result as an open attack on its most basic interests.

The very emergence of the Trump phenomenon is indicative of the growing divisions in the American society and the mounting fear of the white majority of the perceived loss of its positions during the Obama presidency. Unfortunately, the comedy style coverage of this year’s campaign by the American media frequently overshadows some very interesting factors underlying these important trends in the public opinion and the configuration of political forces, depicting significant shifts taking place in the US and international power systems.

Of special interest are the changes in the relationship of two major political parties and their conceptual approaches to the most basic foreign policy issues. These changes were incrementally accumulating in the period following the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the bipolar system. They were depicted, among others, in the erosion of the traditional Left-Right divide, whereas the Democrats were the relative "dowes” in terms of foreign policy, apprehensive about the massive use of force abroad, while the Republicans were the "hawks,” enthusiastically supporting large military budgets and the highly interventionist foreign policies. Meanwhile, already at the very end of the twentieth century, the Democrat Bill Clinton has shown himself to be quite an interventionist President, ready to aggressively use the military force abroad, especially in the Balkans.

This erosion of the traditional American political landscape has reached its culmination during the current presidential electoral campaign, with both candidates violating the established party "rules of the game.” Their contrast symbolizes the challenges facing the United States both in the domestic and the foreign policy arenas.

Hillary Clinton, the Establishment Favorite Daughter?

Hillary Clinton—the Democratic candidate—personifies the traditional political establishment and the merger of the political, economic, and financial elites. She was in power or close to it for the last forty years (ironically, now she is positioning herself as a "candidate of change”), and is aggressively supported by these elites. Scandals, surrounding her opponent, overshadow some very interesting features of Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy platform—while claiming to be Barak Obama’s successor, on many foreign policy issues, she stays way to the right not only of the current President, but even of her Republican rival (in this sense, she could be considered an ideological successor to Dick Cheney rather than Obama).

Clinton constantly emphasizes her political experience and connections; she is very careful with details, but is also stiff, not charismatic, and surrounded by a tight group of long-term cronies. For many, even among the Democrats, she personifies the power of the Wall Street and political corruption. In addition, many aspects of her political history and the track of decisions she made, including those during her tenure at the State Department, are more than questionable.

Every time Hillary claims her foreign policy credentials and vast experience, coming to mind is Bernie Sanders’ sarcastic remark that "Experience is good, but judgment also matters”: both throughout her tenure as the US Senator and the Secretary of State, and especially during the current campaign, Clinton has shown an amazing inflexibility and a poor judgment, stubborn adherence to the Cold War stereotypes, strong hawkish tendencies, the inability to think imaginatively and to break through the narrow circle of the thinking likewise Neocon advisors, many of whom also have some personal grudge against Russia. One might have an impression that she got stuck somewhere in the 1960s, before even the Détente—in a world that has simply seized to exist decades ago. Her stubborn refusal to accept this fact can lead American foreign policy in general and the US-Russian relations in particular into a dangerous dead end. Still, Hillary’s arrival in the White House is quite possible and can lead to a significant worsening of the US-Russian relations.

Donald Trump: Rocking the Boat?

The political establishment, regardless of its traditional political sympathies, is looking to Hillary Clinton as a symbol of stability and predictability. It is not surprising, considering the fact that her opponent is Donald Trump—a political novice, not having any real political track or experience, moody, unpredictable, and frequently mean to his opponents and the media. This political outsider speaks a normal human language and rejects the political correctness; he is charismatic, has strong populist tendencies and excellent public relations skills as well as a vast business experience (including the international one), and refuses to play by conventional rules. For many in the US, he symbolizes the break up with the "politics as usual” and the power grip of the party bosses.

Meanwhile, the emergence of the Trump candidacy and the hysterical reaction to his phenomenon of the political establishment have some pretty interesting parallels with the figure of Boris Yeltsin and the sloppy attempts by the Communist nomenklatura and the loyalist media and academic establishment serving it to discredit a political outsider and to block his political advancement in the late Perestroika years— practically all their actions in 1987-91, aimed at proving that Yeltsin was trying to destroy the political status quo, were bringing results opposite to the desired ones.

In Trump’s case, this is true for the areas of both domestic and foreign policy. In regard to the latter, the most shocking for the establishment (and a wide public) were Trump’s loud proposals, concerning the deportation of illegal immigrants (primarily, from Latin America) and a temporary ban on the Moslem immigration. Also well known and relatively less controversial are his isolationist economic platform and a skeptical attitude towards the further development of economic integrative groupings in North America, the Pacific and the North Atlantic regions (ironically, Trump’s position on this point finds support on both the left and the right edges of the American political spectrum).

But these populist statements and their noisy coverage by the media overshadow some other, quite interesting Trump’s proposals in the foreign policy arena, demonstrating unexpectedly that this seventy-year old can also show a weighted and clear judgment, think creatively, and reject the Cold War stereotypes, sharply contrasting with Hillary’s aggressive and dogmatic views. If any of those are implemented, they can significantly benefit both the United States and the international community. Among them—Trump’s statements that in the absence of bipolarity and a quick shift of the center of power from the North Atlantic to the Pacific, NATO’s original model has outlived itself, and the European allies have to at least adequately share in their own defense effort; that the US relations with Russia need to be normalized, tensions with China have to be avoided, and the US must cooperate with both in dealing with the new global threats, coming first of all from the rogue states and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. Also in contrast to Clinton, Trump does not show a craving for sponsoring military coups or getting militarily involved in numerous conflicts in the Middle East and some other unstable regions (even though he has started during the last week to demand the increase in military expenditures and the expansion of the US Armed Forces in the hope to regain some of the lost to Hillary support of the "hawks”). Especially significant is the fact that he (again, in contrast to Clinton), does not believe that various tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts (such as those in Syria and Libya) necessarily represent a struggle for democracy, requiring the direct US military intervention. In general, the arrival in the White House of a President not overwhelmed by the Cold War stereotypes might have a positive side to it.

At the same time, Trump’s policies can bring spontaneity and might lead to a spectacular worsening of relations with some states and IGOs. The core issue will be his policies in the immigration sphere, including those towards Mexico and the Moslem community. These can seriously worsen the US relations with many Moslem countries, Mexico and Latin America in general and create a deep dissatisfaction on the part of particular ethnic and religious communities within the US, having a destabilizing effect on the interethnic and interconfessional relations in the country. Closely related to those are his hawkish proposals in the area of homeland security—their implementation might result in limits on personal rights and freedoms.

Still, the absence of a political track and the erratic character of Trump’s current statements make it very hard to predict the outlines and dynamics of his policies. A lot will depend on his team, the people he surrounds himself with—but for now, this for the most part also remains a gray area for analysis.

The End Game

So, what can we expect in the end? The current electoral situation is marked by the extremely negative view on, and not infrequently, a real hatred of both candidates by significant groups of the electorate (roughly 3/5 of voters have a negative view of each of those candidates) and even of the large segments of their own party members.

Under these conditions, the main factors deciding the outcome of elections will be the ability of the candidates not only to energize and bring to the electoral polls their supporters, but also to encourage the "protest” vote of those who, while having no love lost for "their” candidate, might still be motivated by the hatred to his/her opponent. In this sense, "in the play” this time are both the independents in the middle and the voters on both extremes of the political spectrum. For Clinton, victory would require the effective encouragement of minority vote and getting support of the former Bernie Sanders’ supporters – not a very easy task, considering the quite dirty (and having some interesting parallels with Stalin’s actions during his struggles against his Party rivals in 1924-1927) methods she used against him during the Democratic primaries. For Trump, this articulating the fears of the white middle class, getting the support of the social conservatives, and "stealing” from Clinton some of the votes of minorities and the former Bernie Sanders supporters. While the latter sounds highly controversial, it is still possible—people who supported Bernie Sanders initially, while having a leftist political agenda, are also strongly against the political status quo and the power of the Wall Street, personified by Hillary Clinton. In addition, the core of this group is comprised of the young whites—while staying on the left, they generally support the ideas of a social state, taxing the rich, and offering social protection to the poor REGARDLESS of their ethnic, racial, religious or gender characteristics. Thus it is quite possible that some of them might support Trump as an agent of change whatever his general political agenda and rhetoric are. Trump is also having a strong and enthusiastic following while Clinton does not generate much enthusiasm even among her staunchest supporters.

The current polls show that Clinton retains a between 3% and 10% percent advantage over Trump (with two "second tier” candidates—a Libertarian Gary Johnson and a Green Jill Stein—getting respectively less than 10% and 5%), even though the gap is steadily shrinking (CNN poll on September 6th has for the first time put Trump’s support above that of Hillary). Still, it would be very problematic to rely on the results of polls in this electoral cycle. Trump challenges the political correctness and the status quo in general, making statements, many of which would have been unimaginable yet a year ago. Under these circumstances, it would not be surprising if quite a significant share of those polled lie, considering it politically dangerous to express their views on some of his most controversial political positions. Only time will tell. One thing is for sure—one of those two will become the next US President, and this election might become decisive for the future of the US and the world.