The long countdown to the United States presidential election has begun. While voters will choose their next chief executive only in November 2016, for the coming 18 months both the major parties in the US — the Democrats and the Republicans — will see lengthy battles to find the appropriate candidate.
Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state and wife of a former President, announced she would be seeking the Democrat nomination. She became the first big name to throw her hat in the ring. No doubt there will be others.
For some 25 years between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush — and encompassing the two terms of Bill Clinton — US presidential elections followed a centrist template. Both parties sought a candidate who would unite moderate Republicans and Democrats — while patronising more extreme or ideological constituencies — and grab the crucial centre. As the economy boomed, especially in the 1990s, and as international challenges loomed — from the closing of the Cold War to the beginning of two bruising wars in Islamic Asia — it was relatively simpler to forge a centrist coalition.
After 2008, this has become that much tougher. The aftermath of the global financial crisis, the impact of which was felt deeply in the American economy and job market, and the failure to achieve tangible victory in Afghanistan and Iraq has left US voters angry and upset. There has been a strong appeal from the left and the right. Indeed, in both parties, the so-called base and the far left (in case of the Democrats) or the far right (as evidenced by the Tea Party movement within the Republicans) makes it difficult for a centrist candidate to easily win a party nomination. Ironically, both parties need to present a centrist face to win the actual election.
These caveats are important while making any early assessments of the US presidential marathon. Take Ms Clinton. While she is a frontrunner for the Democrat nomination, she is far from being a unanimous choice. The Clintons are a polarising presence in American politics: they have loyal adherents but equally they attract great hostility. The far left of Ms Clinton’s party distrusts her and believes she is not radical enough and too close to big business. This section is the base of President Barack Obama, a polarising figure in his own right and one with whom Ms Clinton has shared an up-and-down relationship.
Ms Clinton and Mr Obama were bitter rivals for the Democrat nomination in 2008. Mr Obama won the nomination and the presidency and then offered Ms Clinton a consolation prize as secretary of state. In Mr Obama’s second term (2012 onward), Ms Clinton dropped out of his administration to distinguish herself from the Obama legacy and make her run for 2016 smoother. Whether it has become smoother is a moot point.
Ms Clinton faces a predicament that Al Gore was unable to overcome in 2000. In that year, Mr Gore, then the vice-president, won the Democrat nomination and was attempting to succeed the two-term Bill Clinton presidency. Mr Gore sought to share credit for the economic expansion of the Clinton era and still create a distance between himself and Mr Clinton’s popular but contested legacy (primarily his personal scandals). In the end he failed. Ms Clinton has a similar challenge.
There is also history. If one discounts Harry S. Truman’s victory in 1948 — he had taken over the presidency mid-term, after Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had won in 1944, died in 1945 — only once in post-war American politics has a party won three successive terms or won the election following a two-term presidency. This happened in 1988, when George H.W. Bush became President. He was helped by the goodwill for his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, and the fact that the US was at the cusp of triumph in the Cold War. Today, as the Obama presidency comes to a close, there is no similar surge of national unity.
What must give Ms Clinton courage, however, is the confusion in the Republican camp. No Republican candidate can afford to entirely ignore the Tea Party with its mix of libertarian economics and social conservatism. Yet, swerving too determinedly in this direction can hurt chances among swing voters. The two most interesting Republican candidates at the moment are Rand Paul, senator from Kentucky, and Marco Rubio, senator from Florida. They are compelling but have their limitations.
Mr Paul and Mr Rubio are regarded as whizkids of the Tea Party movement, though some in the Tea Party have turned against Mr Rubio in recent weeks, arguing he is betraying his convictions and trying to mainstream himself. Both men are to the right of the economic spectrum and advocate cuts in federal government spending. Mr Rubio is born of Cuban migrants and hopes to unite the Hispanic vote (which, of course, extends well beyond the Cuban-American community) in addition to drawing sufficient core Republicans. Mr Paul’s foreign policy is tough on rhetoric, but is essentially a sophisticated rendition of the isolationist urges that are never too below the surface in the American heartland.
Mr Rubio and Mr Paul seem the sort of interesting, intriguing candidates right-wing op-ed writers would relish. To be honest, neither seems quite electable. Many Republicans are betting on the possible entry of Jeb Bush, George W. Bush’s younger brother, former governor of Florida and married to a Hispanic himself. The party establishment is comfortable with another Bush, and does not want to waste its chance in an America where there is some fatigue with the Democrats after Mr Obama’s eight years. Of course, the semiotics and sociology of yet another Bush vs Clinton election are another matter.
What does all this mean for the world? Frankly, the early signs are sobering. Consider an example. Mr Paul and Mr Obama are very different politicians, representing robust right and left positions. Nevertheless, they share the belief that America and the American public do not have the stomach, capacity and economy for an expansive and far-reaching foreign policy. In a sense, both conform to the idea of “nation-building at home”, of receding from distant frontiers and making only a modest investment of American men, money and machines in overseas problems and conflicts.
Mr Obama may be on his way out and Mr Paul may not win. Even so, such thinking is bound to influence election discourse and temper the diplomatic enthusiasm of other candidates. For a planet increasingly bereft of American leadership, the implications can be guessed.
The writer can be contacted at malikashok@gmail.com
