Amerika po volbách

Oct 25, 2016 Richard N. Haass

KYJEV – Probíhající prezidentská kampaň ve Spojených státech se vyznačuje absencí zdvořilosti a obrovskými rozdíly mezi oběma kandidáty: antimainstreamovým podnikatelem Donaldem Trumpem na republikánské straně a uhlazenou političkou Hillary Clintonovou reprezentující demokraty. Jejich klání odhalilo hluboké zlomové linie uvnitř americké společnosti a poškodilo globální reputaci země. Není tedy překvapivé, že jednou z mála věcí, na nichž se dnes Američané shodnou, je názor, že kampaň už trvá příliš dlouho. I ona však brzy skončí. Otázka zní, co přijde pak.

Předvolební průzkumy naznačují, že někdejší senátorka a ministryně zahraničí Clintonová kontroverzního Trumpa porazí. Průzkumy však nesmíme zaměňovat s realitou. I před červnovým referendem o brexitu byla koneckonců většina pozorovatelů přesvědčená, že stoupenci setrvání v unii mají vítězství jisté. A kolumbijští voliči nedávno odmítli mírovou dohodu, u níž se všeobecně očekávalo, že si podporu obyvatel získá.

To vše ve výsledku znamená, že vítězství Clintonové je možná pravděpodobné, ale nikoliv jisté. Jediný výzkum veřejného mínění, na kterém skutečně záleží, proběhne 8. listopadu. Do té doby můžeme jen spekulovat.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Richard N. Haass

Writing for PS since 2020
126 Commentaries

Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. He is the author of The World: A Brief Introduction (Penguin Press, 2020).

The Coming Confrontation with North Korea
Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images
Free to read

The Coming Confrontation with North Korea

Richard N. Haass is all but certain that the next US president will face a fateful decision regarding North Korea.

23
The US Election and the World
Rick Wilking/AFP/Getty Images

The US Election and the World

Nabil Fahmy worries that neither candidate will deliver ambitious – and urgently needed – global leadership.

5

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 20 Comments on this article

Rik Rijs Nov 7, 2016

A president is surrounded by advisers. Trump may be an uncontrolled missile but the Clinton advisers are known as warmongers. Making the choice difficult.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ron So Nov 6, 2016

Could the markets react in the same way as Brexit once the winner is elected?
https://www.facebook.com/emptybucket.co.uk/posts/1776664665916521
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Doyle Nov 2, 2016

As far as I recall, the "Council on foreign relations" is a conservative think tank. So the article is more reasonable than one might expect, but I think the foreign relations part is the real difference between the parties today. The bickering we will see is just more of the same as already applies, possibly now more exaggerated.
I would like to see the GOP reinvent itself, which for me would be a return to the post WW2 party as led by Eisenhower. This really was then on a footing which looked after all the population and not as now the richest sector. The US desperately needs the two parties to regenerate of be prepared to descend into irrelevance.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Oct 30, 2016

Unfortunately, without a new generation of serious leaders in the Republican party, it will be difficult to determine whether the current leaders have either the political wit or the political will to engage with both Democrats and the wider world. Win or lose, Trump is the Republican party in its current America-first configuration.
The Republican willingness to suggest that the Supreme Court must become a vehicle for imposing a Republican ideological agend on the country speaks volumes about the crisis of the American constitutional order.
Win or lose, the Democrats have to rebuild/expand their presence and roles in the politics of states where they have lost ground. Obama's experience in the White House has been a signal that control of the White House does not provide a long-term basis for poilitical competitiveness at the federal level.
In real terms, American politics is ripe for realignment and it will require serious action by both parties to create sound policies to shape the American future.
Without political realignment and renewal, America will continue to demonstrate its lack of leadership capacity at both domestic and international levels.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Casa Lambert Oct 30, 2016

How can any of the two candidatura dream about running again in 4 years time? They are both at around 70 today and this one is the last election where baby boomers can have a dominant say.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Oct 29, 2016

ALL POLITICS ALWAYS LOCAL
The Planet's Superpower always has Twin Audiences - Domestic and Global, Internal and External.
Britain's quagmire for Three centuries was no different - Global and Empire, External and Internal
In achieving the balance, the lessons of history often paramount.

First, Domestic.
The Inequality that has created 1 % is a result of Monetary Myopia.
The Central Bank Governor has one obsession - Economic Growth.
Inequality that Economic Growth creates, cannot be addressed by Monetary Policy.
The Fiscal domain is the primary responsibility of The Chancellor - The Treasury Secretary.
No amount of heavy lifting by The Governor - and Interest Rates are now Zero already - can overcome the Fiscal deficit.
Fiscal departures are needed to correct the Inequality predicament.
Infrastructure departures are needed to correct the obsession with Asset Prices.
Infrastructure departures are required to return Economics to the Real World.
Asset Prices are the reason why The Inequality predicament has no answers.

Second, Global - Know Thy Enemies, Know Thyself.
Tactics without Strategy is the noise before defeat.
The principal threat to The Only Superpower is always internal.
Because all "Known" external enemies can easily be repulsed.
The main "Unknown" is the calibration of responses to the Internal.
The agenda of key internal players is the greatest challenge to equilibrium.
Invincibility always is derived from Defense.

Greece's Empire collapsed due weaknesses within - Internal Challengers wait for Opportunity.
Rome's Empire collapsed due weaknesses within - Internal Challengers wait for Opportunity.
Britain's Empire collapsed due weaknesses within - Internal Challengers wait for Opportunity.
Soviet Empire collapsed due weaknesses within - Internal Challengers wait for Opportunity.

Empires overstretched.
America's Empire collapse WHEN IT COMES WILL BE due weaknesses within - Internal Challengers wait for Opportunity.
So, Strengthening the Defence is strategy required - Wait for Attack and Victory opportunities.
Hence, all politics always Internal/local - TIP O'NEILL was a wise man.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Oct 26, 2016

Do the words complete and utter gridlock sound familiar. There will be no compromise no one in government is interested. They want all or nothing he players in congress aren't changing so the policies won't either. Because the player's have no interest in making the system work, it won't.
- stephan Edwards Oct 26, 2016
  
  Mr. Araujo, They are going to loose the presidency as they have the last 2 elections it didn't change a thing. Neither party will have a filibuster proof majority in the senate. As for the house the republican majority will be smaller not going away. And the congressmen least likely to loose their seats are the ones who thing Reagan & Goldwater were too far to the left. So no Mr Araujo the chances of the GOP changing course are less then the chances of my flapping my arms and going to the moon.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jose araujo Oct 26, 2016
  
  By no one you mean the Republicans, right?
  
  Well after the crushing defeat, they will have to change course. Remember more than anything they love power, and like good social Darwinists they are, they despise losers. So the GOP will change, and don’t worry, Archie Bunker will always vote republican.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- M M Oct 26, 2016
  
  One could not have put it any clearer..
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Oct 26, 2016

We could argue that the Trump crushing will put an end to the republican lunacy and extremism.

Moderate and progressive republicans will surface and end the long hibernation they have been subjected for these long years, making the party great once again.
- Jose araujo Oct 26, 2016
  
  Unfortunately it looks like its true, although I now many intelligent, good, altruists, well intended people who are conservatives, but none of them ever supported Trump.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- stephan Edwards Oct 26, 2016
  
  I think the last moderate and progressive republicans are stuffed and mounted in a display of extinct species in the Smithsonian.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Oct 26, 2016

The way not to lead is after winning a 55%-45% election you try and use that narrow lead to ram everything you want down the throat of the losers.

The way to lead is to rather approach the losers and say we will agree to 45% of your wants if you agree to 55% of ours.

In America, say Clinton wins, she could agree to an import tax if GOP agrees to medical programs. She gets a stimulus budget and they get the gun rights they want.

This approach effectively gives her 90% of the population in support of her actions. The end result is that instead of being a lame duck president like Obama who is blocked at every turn she actually gets to lead, make differ. Sure, sacrifices must be made by both sides but the end result is a functional country.
- Jose araujo Oct 26, 2016
  
  Well, Obama is Mr. compromise, and look where it took him. The only way to deal with cochroaches is to crush them if not next time we will have someone like Pat Robertson running for president...
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 25, 2016

Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, gives his personal views on what awaits Obama's successor - most probably a one-term presidency - and where the country is headed. As a Republican and neocon, Haass will not vote for Hillary Clinton. He might still support "the controversial" Donald Trump, despite his "lack of civility" and anti-establishment stance. In fact he never aligned himself behind a bunch of high-profile Republicans, who in August publicly refused to endorse Trump. The GOP nominee held a private briefing in August 2015 with Haass, and spoke positively of him afterwards. Earlier in March Fareed Zakaria, the host of GPS on CNN asked Haass whether he would consider serving Trump as secretary of state. Haass beat about the bush and avoided to answer the question.
It's clear that the exchange of barbs between the contestants have "exposed deep fault lines within American society and damaged the country’s global reputation." It is also true that many Americans find "the campaign has gone on for too long," and they look forward to seeing the end of mudslinging. But do they really ask themselves "what comes next?" Emotions are high on both sides of the camps, and each just doesn't want to see the other side winning. Although polls suggest that Clinton is set to win, Haass says, "polls are not to be confused with reality," reminding us of the June referendum in Britain, which indicated a victory for the “Remain” camp. Three weeks ago voters in Colombia rejected a peace deal with Farc, which was "widely expected to receive popular approval." Hence Haass insists, "while a Clinton victory may be likely, it is no certainty. The only poll that counts is the one on November 8."
One thing is certain - the country is divided, as will be the next government, "regardless of who is president or which party has a majority in either chamber of Congress." Haass predicts neither Democrats nor Republicans would win a wave election that they could "realize their objectives" without being at each other's mercy. Even Democrats and Republicans are divided among themselves - "with large and highly motivated factions pulling each to their respective extremes – Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right," making it very difficult "to compromise on centrist positions."
Haass sees a one-term presidency for whoever is elected. "If Clinton wins, many Republicans will assume that it was only because of Trump’s flaws," and they will ensure she wouldn't run for re-election in 2020. "A country favoring change, they will conclude, is unlikely to keep a Democrat in the Oval Office for a fourth term." By the same logic, "if Trump manages to win, most Democrats (and even some Republicans) will .... make it their highest priority to ensure that he does not have an opportunity for a second term. Given how much of Trump’s agenda his fellow policymakers would likely find objectionable, governing would be very difficult during his administration."
Either way, the author believes it may not be all doom and gloom. It is still possible "to enact legislation to fund the modernization of America’s aging infrastructure, a policy that both candidates and many in Congress favor." They might still be able "to reform the US tax code – in particular, lowering the high rate for corporations and raising taxes on the wealthy." Or even to improve Obama's health care reform, which faces "implementation problems with the current system." Thorny issues like immigration reform, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, America's deficit, might not be addressed anytime soon.
In foreign policies Clinton is expected to be more engaged in Syria and Ukraine, taking "a tougher line toward North Korea" if it doesn't scale down its nuclear activities. As Trump has no clues in politics and foreign affairs, it's unclear, "how much of his campaign rhetoric would be translated into policy." He might adopt an isolationist approach, leaving some traditional allies across the globe high and dry. When asking what "will happen to America after the presidential election," no doubt some of its outcomes will be deeply felt in the rest of the world. The stakes can't be higher, and the Democrats need to win big, because many Americans fear a change for the worse under Trump, or partisan brinkmanship with a GOP majority in Congress.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Oct 25, 2016

Sorry Bob, but you've "misspoken." Clinton said that half of your Trump supporters are deplorable. Was she wrong?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Oct 25, 2016

There is a big and I think important difference between the split in the Democratic party and that in the GOP. While Sanders Democrats are wary of Clinton, they remain (as they were during the primaries) predominantly civil. The GOP on the other hand appears headed for a nasty civil war.

The biggest question that will linger after the election, in my mind, is what will become of what's left of Republican conservatism in America after all this. Will the GOP find a path back to something constructive, or will it redouble its commitment to a politics of division?
- Bob Trumpkin Oct 25, 2016
  
  The Democrats are the party of division. After all, it was Clinton calling half of the country deplorable. She was paying people to cause violence at Trump rallies. Clinton has stroked the flames of hatred in the country and the Democrats will pay a heavy price for that.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Oct 25, 2016

"Safe areas in Syria" is a thin euphemism for directly entering the war. One would think Haas is campaigning against Sec. Clinton here.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/GtCrCzzcs

Cookies and Privacy

Amerika po volbách

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

The Coming Confrontation with North Korea

The US Election and the World

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Amerika po volbách

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification