This is really exciting time in America; watching the drama of
the 2016 Presidential nomination process from a distance, I
find the contests, the debates, the arguments, the hustling
and jostling on both sides of the mainstream political aisle,
most instructive, and intriguing. The world’s most advanced
democracy is proving once again that freedom is a golden
ideal and that anyone who seeks to lead it, must undergo a
rigorous test of leadership and courage.
So far, the presidential primaries have proven to be a sifting
process, and after last Tuesday, better known as Super
Tuesday, many of the otherwise promising candidates have
dropped out of the race, leaving the field to just a few
survivors.
But the prospects are clear: Senator Hillary Clinton seems a
sure bet on the Democratic side, with Senator Bernie
Sanders still trailing behind. The Republicans too may well
end up with Donald Trump. The other contenders: Marco
Rubio, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich may not succeed in
displacing Trump. And this in itself is a source of anxiety, to
both Americans and non-Americans alike. If the race gets
down to a Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump scenario, we all
have every reason to be anxious. Suppose Trump wins and
becomes America’s President?
Donald Trump is a snarling insurgent and a nativist. He has
said all the worse things that should never be uttered by
anyone seeking to lead a responsible and diverse nation. His
campaign has been marked by insults, anger, put downs,
bully tactics, rants and unapologetic immaturity. He has not
been able to articulate any coherent policy, but he has
proved to be very creative with populist histrionics. The list
of Trumpisms is so frighteningly long and embarrassing. He
recommends torture, and the killing of families of terrorists.
He has been endorsed by white supremacists and he doesn’t
quite seem to mind being labeled a racist. He threatens
violence and on one occasion, he almost punched a
protester in the face. He even got into an altercation with the
Pope. He wants to barricade the American South border,
and build a wall to shut out Mexico, because according to
him, the Mexicans who cross the border into America are
“rapists.” And when that wall is built, he insists Mexico must
pick up the bill.
He doesn’t want Muslims inside America either, and he has
dismissed Africans as unwanted and Nigerians as a problem.

He says:

“We need to get the Africans out. Not the blacks, the
Africans. Especially the Nigerians. They’re everywhere. I
went for a rally in Alaska and met just one African in the
entire state. Where was he from? Nigeria! He’s in Alaska
taking our jobs. They’re in Houston taking our jobs. Why
can’t they stay in their own country? Why? I’ll tell you why.
Because they are corrupt. Their Governments are so
corrupt, they rob the people blind and bring it all here to
spend. And their people run away and come down here
and take our jobs! We can’t have that! If I become
president, we’ll send them all home. We’ll build a wall at
the Atlantic Shore. Then maybe we’ll re-colonize them
because obviously they did not learn a damn thing from
the British!”

This certainly cannot be the temperament of a man who
wants to be President. Indeed, one of the most amazing
things that has happened in the on-going process is how a
real estate and reality television celebrity, whose best
achievement is inheriting wealth, and turning around a
family business, more by instinct rather than any special
technocratic ability, has ended up, getting close to winning
the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party, with
the frightening prospect of becoming President of the United
States on January 20, 2017.
The irony is that everyone underestimated him. The media
loved the headlines that he offered with his many offensive
remarks. He was regarded in many quarters as a comical
distraction, and a bubble that may soon burst. There were
pictures of his current wife, looking like a siren, with her
drop-dead gorgeous figure, and skimpy dressing that
belongs more to Hollywood rather than the White House.
When Ted Cruz upstaged him in the Iowa caucuses, there
were sighs of relief, but since then The Donald has won
every other primary, and on March 1, he won in seven of the
11 states. He is also likely to do better than his closest rivals
in the coming caucuses. Except a miracle happens, Donald
Trump will be the Republican flagbearer for the 2016
Presidential election. He has received endorsements from
key members of the Republican establishment, something
that was thought unlikely. In a recent debate, his fiercest
opponents even said they would support anyone that wins
the GOP nomination. It may be too late to “dump Trump.”
He did not invent the votes that have put him comfortably in
the lead. Republican voters actually gave him the votes.
While voters at party primaries do not represent the general
voting population, they are nevertheless saying something
about the American mind at this moment. Trump’s message
of xenophobia, protectionism and isolationism attracts large
followership and excites the conservative crowd. The
average American is angry: angry with his circumstances,
with the establishment, with the lack of jobs, with the
economy, with politicians, with foreigners. Trump shapes all
that anger into rhetoric and he offers himself as an
alternative. He is not part of the establishment; he is against
it. He calls himself a “common sense conservative” but he is
actually a political insurgent. The only time he has said
anything that sounded Presidential was after Super Tuesday,
when he departed from his usual script.
This has been taken as a sign that perhaps Trump will re-
brand, and that his style so far has been nothing but
populist gimmickry. As President of the United States, he
would probably change that style, recruit experts to handle
state affairs, and restrain himself. But can America afford to vote on the basis of that possibility? Can America afford to gamble? Trump is impulsive and non-conventional; there is
no guarantee that his Presidency will not trump America and
embarrass the party of Abraham Lincoln. The character of
the leader affects nearly everything else. It will be too much
to believe that Donald Trump is merely acting, given his
surplus confidence.


Mrs. Hillary Clinton is a better choice, but going into a
general election, she would have to deal with the division
within the Democratic fold. Bernie Sanders, her leading
rival, has such a devoted grassroots followership that has
divided the Democrats into the pro- and anti-establishment
wings. Sanders has mobilized such a fanatical political base
within the party and on social media that does not trust Mrs
Clinton. She has been branded a friend of Wall Street and
the status quo, whereas Sanders and his supporters insist
that the best way forward is to change how Washington
works, and they do not believe Mrs Clinton can do that.
Despite her attempts to move a little to the left in recent
times, the insurgents running a “Bernie or Bust” campaign
may move to the Trump side during the general elections
because they are convinced she is play-acting, just to win the
nomination. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is admired for his
progressive, liberal ideas. But again, just as in Trump’s case,
his mostly young supporters are motivated by anger and
insecurity. Sanders wants to redistribute wealth, checkmate
Wall Street, and revolutionize health care. The young and
the angry are excited but those ideas are not properly
articulated in policy terms. And in any case, will the
American voter be willing to have as President a man who
says he is a “socialist?”
Mrs Clinton’s big challenge is to play the role of a unifier and take steps to unite the party, after winning the Democratic nomination. She will definitely need that “Bernie or Bust” crowd. She struck the right chord when she spoke recently about love and unity, quoting the Scriptures. “Love never fails. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (I Corinthians 13),” she said.

“These are words to live by, not only for ourselves, but
also for our country. I know it sometimes seems a little
odd for someone running for president in these days, in
this time, to say we need more love and kindness in
America. But I’m telling you from the bottom of my heart
we do. We do."

“There is no doubt in my mind that America’s best years
can be ahead of us. We have got to believe that. We’ve got
to work for that. We have to stand with each other. We
have to hold each other up, lift each other up, move
together into the future that we will make.”

These are wise, consolatory words. Mrs Clinton has her
heart in the right place and has both the experience and the
maturity to lead America. Senator, former Secretary of
State, and 42nd First Lady of the United States, more than 25years in the limelight has exposed Hillary Rodham Clinton to intense media scrutiny, creating what many consider an
image problem. But whatever that is, it can be surmounted.
A Presidential contest between her and Trump will amount
to a choice between love and hate, between the sober and
the outrageous, between the respectable and the grossly
self-contradictory. America needs to encourage love and
kindness within its borders and also stand with the rest of
the world. The angry American voter who feels under-
represented, alienated, jobless and unfulfilled, and who
desperately wants to punish the establishment, may be
making a comment on mainstream politics, orthodoxy and
the performance of the Obama administration. But that
anger should not be turned against the rest of the world by
putting a xenophobe and closet dictator in the White House.
Democracy is tricky; it sometimes ends up as a parody of
itself. When the people clamour for change, they can vote
with their hearts, and prove impervious to plain sight
reason, and overlook likely pitfalls. We can only hope that
Donald Trump does not become the symbol of the change
that Americans are seeking. That would be sad indeed for
the free world..