Donald Trump has
been winning votes in places and with constituencies that the
Democrats usually win in presidential races. Bernie Sanders has been
winning votes that in the past went to Hillary. Both men have
understood the dynamics of a political landscape transformed by the
rise of the unprotected. Both understand that the great majority
of non-elite Americans – those outside the 1% – live with varying
degrees and kinds of fear. They have seen administration after
administration, whichever party, remain complacent with erosion of America's place in the world, increasing inequality, loss
of jobs and decay of basic infrastructure. Prospects for a better
future – if not for themselves, for their children – seem to
have gone up in smoke. Hillary Clinton has her core constituency of
minorities but her ability to gather in those who have been voting
for Trump and Sanders – working/middle class whites and the young –
is very much open to question.
In part, Trump has
prospered on the Republican side because of the ideological rigidity
and uninspiring nature of his opponents. Clinton has been able to
keep the lead on the Democratic side because of her establishment
support and core constituencies. Whether the Republican
establishment likes it or not, Trump has seized their party. The
Democrats appear stuck with Hillary. Sanders may well have a better
chance of beating Trump by keeping the traditional Democratic base
while adding the young and inspired. Perhaps the party will yet grab
hold of itself – what if Sanders won California? – and switch the
super-delegates to Bernie. But otherwise, it will have to go into
the November race with an uncharismatic, widely disliked, upholder of
the establishment.
How might Hillary
nevertheless win? She would have to meet Trump issue by issue with
specific, focused plans to actually deal with the challenges that he only
promises to overcome by merely being Trump.
Top of the list are
jobs and free trade. Both parties' long adherence to the free-trade
religion has clearly led to the shifting of American jobs abroad.
The supposed benefits have included a plethora of imported “cheaper”
goods that the working/middle class must struggle to buy with the
wages of the lower paying service jobs left them. Clinton might instead call
for a moratorium on free-trade agreements – including the TPP –
and a re-evaluation of all existing such agreements (except for NAFTA
which remains a vital part of our own neighborhood). Trade
agreements that benefit far-off workers in repressive regimes – and
thus help keep such regimes in power – should be special targets
for possibly rolling back. Re-visiting free-trade would be
accompanied by a re-industrialization program to support the creation
of jobs in the productive sectors that could be competitive provided
with limited government support and perhaps protective tariffs.
Free-traders would offer many objections but the country at large is
living with the reality that free-trade
globalization may have been premature.
Clinton might also
go beyond platitudes about re-building America by offering a detailed
outline of infrastructure spending. Our drinking-water systems, city
streets and mass transport systems, inter-city rails, highways,
bridges, tunnels and waterways all need repair or replacement. Areas
prone to sea-level and climate change need to be identified and
communities, places and activities perhaps re-configured or
relocated. Everywhere-wireless internet access might be built. All
these would create good jobs and add value to our economy.
Clinton might
outline detailed plans to curtail the ability of “Wall Street” –
too-big-to-fail financial activities and entities – to cause or
heighten economic recessions. She might also commit to seeking
legislation (and Supreme Court nominees) that will reduce the role of
money in our elections and enable universal voter participation. She
might also decide to fund her campaign only from direct fundraising
from individual small donors.
Finally, Clinton
might take on directly the longstanding Republican attack on
government. Government is our collective capability to act on our
collective behalf. It is not the “enemy.” She should
definitively eschew the sort of “triangulation” that looks to
“compromise” with every 1% -inspired effort to cut government
spending and target entitlements. This also means taking on the
debt-issue. The US prints the world's money and there is no
competitor yet on the scene. Taxes on the well-off could be
raised considerably without scaring them away. (The US is still the
best place on earth to enjoy your money.) Clinton might also combine
a continued commitment to a strong US defense with a commitment to
look again at our need for such things as $13 billion aircraft
carriers and expensive equipment and weapons that are seldom used or
don't work or cost as promised.
In the general
election, Trump will be the transformation candidate in the
narrowest sense of trying to convince American voters that he himself
is all the transformation they need. If she gets the nomination,
Hillary Clinton may have to become the candidate of real, detailed
plans for transformation in order to win in November.
