U.S. Elections: Is It Time to Choose the China Patterns?

Michael Tomasky, Special Correspondent for The Daily Beast and Editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, shares his opinion on Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s election campaigns, as well as his thoughts on the future of Russia-U.S. relations. Tomasky is the author of Left for Dead: The Life, Death, and Possible Resurrection of Progressive Politics in America (1996), and of Hillary's Turn: Inside Her Improbable, Victorious Senate Campaign (2001), a chronicle of Hillary Clinton's successful election to the Senate in 2000.

Michael Tomasky, Special Correspondent for The Daily Beast and Editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, shares his opinion on Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s election campaigns, as well as his thoughts on the future of Russia-U.S. relations. Tomasky is the author of Left for Dead: The Life, Death, and Possible Resurrection of Progressive Politics in America (1996), and of Hillary's Turn: Inside Her Improbable, Victorious Senate Campaign (2001), a chronicle of Hillary Clinton's successful election to the Senate in 2000.

Mr. Tomasky, how can you explain the emergence of Donald Trump as a candidate? Why in your opinion he is so popular among the American public?

Trump’s emergence can be explained as follows. One of the big divisive issues in the United States right now has to do quite simply with the way the country is changing, racially and demographically. The Latino population is growing, as well as the Asian population, while the white population is shrinking. By 2050 it’s projected that it will no longer be a white majority country. About half of the country is perfectly fine with this, and about half of the country is terrified by this. It has taken shape that the Democrats represent the half of the country that is fine with this, and the Republicans represent the half of the country that is terrified by this. So, the Democrats have become a multicultural party, and the Republicans have become a white, ethno-nationalist party in essence. They have some minority members, of course but it’s a 98 per cent white party. The issue of gravest concern to those Americans is immigration and specifically illegal immigration. And that’s what vaulted Trump to the top. When he gave his announcement speech, he said that Mexico has been sending us murderers and rapists, and he shot to the top of the Republican polls that day, and he’s been there ever since. And you know, there are other reasons, and there are related reasons. There is a segment of the American population which overlaps with the anti-immigrant segment that believes we just have so many problems and they’re not being solved, and they just want a strong man to just get in there and solve them. And I think deep down, people know that that’s a fantasy. You can’t do that in America. The president doesn’t have that much power under our constitution. But they want to believe it. So, that’s a related reason but I think those two factors are the main factors that describe the situation.

Michael Tomasky

What are the key elements of the election campaigns of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? And what is the most distinctive feature of each campaign? Probably, it’s immigration for Trump, as you’ve mentioned, and what about Clinton?

Well, Clinton’s main positive emphasis is probably going to be economic and the need to do more for the American middle class. Over the last forty years but really fifteen years, in particular wages for people in the middle have been pretty stagnant, while at the same time other costs associated with just living a middle class life in America have gone way up, notably college tuition which as you know costs money in the United States, and healthcare which people have to pay a portion of in the United States. So, these people feel squeezed, you know, and Bernie Sanders’ popularity was a reflection of how squeezed people feel. And Clinton will try to emphasize that. She’ll try to say, you know, “I’m here to give middle class people a fair shake”. That will be her main thing.

Could you please share your vision of Russia-U.S. relations in two cases: if the new U.S. president is Donald Trump and if the new president is Hillary Clinton?

With Clinton, I think, it’s pretty easy to know. She is somewhat more hawkish than Barack Obama; she’s not a neoconservative. She’s somewhere in between those two. But she will take a more hawkish line on Russia. I don’t think there is any denying that, on sanctions, on Syria and potential for a no-fly zone which she has talked about on the campaign trail. And these things could escalate into diplomatic problems. I don’t think she’s militaristic. I don’t think she wants to start a shooting war, certainly not with Russia; I don’t think with anybody but certainly not with Russia. But I can see tension rising, you know, at least episodically, from time to time.

Anadolu Agency / Kayhan Ozer
Igor Ivanov:
Russia–U.S. Relations: The Limits of Possible

With Trump, I think, it’s completely unpredictable because, you know, he says so far that he likes Putin, and I know those things sound good to Russian ears but he can wake up next week and decide completely the opposite, and he’s not anchored by any principles. He’s only anchored by power and what will help Trump. That’s all he’s anchored by. And, if changing his mind about Russia will help Trump, he’ll change his mind about Russia. He has no fixed principles. He’s very dangerous in that way. Beyond Russia he could make moves that cause worldwide economic collapse. If he wants to start a trade war with China that’ll impact Russia, that’ll impact everyone.

What Bill Clinton is going to do in case Hillary Clinton becomes the president? Is he looking for any position in the administration?

This is a very interesting question, and it would be unprecedented, of course. I don’t think he’d be choosing china patterns, which is what first ladies used to do. I don’t think that he would have a formal role, that most people seem to think. That would be a little kind of inappropriate for him to have a formal role. Although, he put his wife in charge of healthcare. First of all, he’ll be a close economic advisor and, that’s not a bad thing because the economy did very well while he was president. I would think he might want get involved in foreign policy. Particularly, I would guess the Middle East; he came so close to brokering Middle East peace deal in 2000, the last year of his presidency, that he’s probably always thought, “I’d like to have one more bite at that apple”. So, I think it’ll be like that. I think he’ll be both in domestic and international realms, sort of a roving advisor and troubleshooter.

Interviewer: Natalia Evtikhevich, RIAC program manager