Newport, Rhode Island: Life, it can be argued, is based on a series of big bets beginning from birth. Is an individual lucky enough to be born into a family with sufficient means to be comfortable? Or, for the majority of people, will life begin with the most humble and meager of the basics? From whatever starting point, can individuals transcend upbringing and rise to the heights of achievements? If so, how?
In a different context, Napoleon asked of his generals, “Does he have luck?” And luck counts.
Like every state, Pakistan has placed many bets on its future. Will a fragile democracy controlled by only a few families including the army since its creation be able to weather the tests of modernisation and transformation from what was essential a feudal background now infected with Islamic extremism and radicalism? Will a fragile economy with huge water and electricity shortages, sustained for the moment by low oil prices and outside private and institutional largesse, cope with an exploding population and those demands? And can Pakistan withstand the pressures of location, caught between the war in Afghanistan and its constant Indian nemesis?
While Pakistanis consider these bets, this is not unique. The future of America also rests on big, big bets — three in fact — that will be won or lost on the November presidential election. The first is economic. The second is geostrategic. And the third is a bet-your-country issue.
Democrat Hillary Clinton has laid out in gruesome detail her economic plans. Go to her website (www.hillaryclinton.com/issues) for specific proposals presented in 17 different issue boxes. Clinton argues for what is basically a variant of Obamaeconomics with new names: Fair tax system for Wall Street and Main Street — read higher taxes on the well-to-do — better jobs and wages for the Middle Class; debt free college — a pander to the Bernie Sanders’ wing — fixing the infrastructure; and 13 other proposals.
Higher taxes on the rich and a new tax on stock trades are meant to pay for increases in other spending and the tax cuts for the lower income earners. In essence, this is Keynesian economics that simply is neither bold nor imaginative enough to stimulate the growth Clinton promises. And the infrastructure plan for $275 billion over five years, and an infrastructure bank based on bonds purchased by individuals for nearly an equal amount is not large enough to make a dent in repairing and modernising the decaying bridges, roads, power grids, ports that the nation must fix.
Clinton’s bet is that a modified more of the same will grow the economy.
Trump’s plans are based on supply side, trickle down economics and lack the detail of Clinton’s. Trump would make massive tax cuts for all and move to only three brackets, cut corporate taxes from 35 percent to 15 percent; and slice through the burdensome regulations that shackle growth and innovation.
Trump’s bet is that freeing up huge amounts of money in the private sector combined with regulatory relief will propel economic growth. The increases in GDP will be sufficiently large to pay for the deficits his tax cuts will generate. And predictions of Trumpian economics contributing many trillions of dollars in new debt will be proven wrong by this approach.
Sadly, both of these bets will not work. One reason is that the major source of economic worry — uncontrollable entitlements — will not be reformed. Second, the tax code that requires major overhaul will remain largely impervious to real reform. And third, infrastructure modernisation can only be effective if far larger spending on the order of one-two trillion dollars is committed. Clinton’s proposal is too small, and Trump has no specifics yet.
The second big, big bet is geostrategic and national security-oriented. Here, Clinton and Trump offer platitudes and rhetoric. Clinton has five issue boxes that promise to defeat not contain the Islamic State, deal with gun violence and veterans and families, and maintain the best military in the world. How all of this is to be achieved, and specific action plans are not clear.
Trump makes absurd assertions about rebuilding the military — a quaint idea given that the US military by all accounts is the finest in our history. Why then is rebuilding needed? So too Trump’s outrageous proposals to reinstate torture: kill families of al-Qaeda members, and “carpet bomb” the enemy are nonsensical. That an unprecedented number of retired senior military officers have taken very public and vocal stands against Trump is not accidental.
The bet here is that Clinton will do little better than Barack Obama, and that Trump’s views could lead to some sort of catastrophe if left unchanged.
The third and biggest bet is the most important and depressing. We are betting the country in many ways on this election. The first part of this big, big bet is that Trump cannot and will not win. The second part is that Clinton will have a safe pair of hands and, at worst, will do no harm. But voting for the lesser of two evils is not inspiring.
Of course, Clinton or Trump could turn into a latter day Harry Truman. When Roosevelt died, few thought Truman had any presidential makings. His approval ratings were almost as bad as the two contenders today. And Tom Dewey was the clear-cut favourite in the 1948 elections. Truman won.
What can American voters do? There is a remote possibility that Republicans will come to their senses and dump Trump. Clinton could stumble. But don’t bet on either. And certainly do not bet that Clinton and Trump could turn into Harry Truman.
The writer is UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist. He serves as Senior Advisor for Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the Atlantic Council and Business Executives for National Security and chairs two private companies. His last book is A Handful of Bullets: How the Murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Still Menaces the Peace. His next book due out next year is Anatomy of Failure: Why America Loses Wars It Starts