Daily Times

The unthinkable has happened in the recently held US presidential elections. The person predicted by the political pundits and the leading pollsters to win the elections ended up on the losing side. Americans have shown their preference for a person who was called sexist, racist, misogynist and xenophobic by the media is the 45th President of the United States.

Donald Trump’s win over the much-touted Hillary Clinton has come as a shock, as he lacked the qualities that were required for the highest office. He not only lacked political and military experience, but his grasp over economic and foreign policy issues was also abominable. This became evident in all the three Presidential debates, where he exposed himself with his flippant comments on the utility of continuing with NATO, his criticism of the Iran Nuclear deal, his views on climate change as a Chinese hoax, and his boast of eliminating ISIS within 30 days. His views did not sit well with the intelligentsia. Barack Obama also felt that Trump was unfit for the top position.

Added to this, Trump’s contempt for Muslims, Hispanics and persons with disability caused fear and uncertainty among the minorities. Moreover, his crass comments on women and his views on the immigration policy were unworthy of a person who would soon be assuming the highest office of the world.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton had decades of experience, having successfully handled complex issues as a Senator and secretary of state. In fact, in all the three debates she had an upper hand over Trump, whose flippant and intemperate language shocked the viewers. Yet, she lost.

The US elections are conducted based on an archaic Electoral College system, where a candidate who receives the majority of electoral votes (currently 270) for the office of president or vice president is elected to that office. For example, in Texas, which has 38 Electoral College votes, Trump managed to get 52.6 percent of the votes, against 43.4 percent that Clinton received. By virtue of polling the highest in that state, he was able to garner all 38 Electoral College votes in his favour. Similarly, in Michigan, which has 16 electoral votes, Trump got 47.6 percent against Clinton’s 47.3 percent, yet managed to get all the Electoral College votes in his favour.

Secondly, Trump managed to win in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, the feat that normally decides the winner. In the swing states, unlike other states, the voters don’t have any special preference for a particular candidate, and cast their votes based on the image and the background of the candidate. In fact, the election is still not over, as the members of the Electoral College, consisting of 538 people, will elect their president on December 19. However, it is unlikely they would cast their vote in favour of Hillary Clinton, as all the Republican candidates have been handpicked by the party, and would not go against the party’s mandate.

Unfortunately for Clinton, despite winning the popular votes by over two million over, she found herself on the losing side. In any other democratic country where elections are based on popular votes, Hillary Clinton would have won the presidential race hands down.

This leads to the question as to why Clinton could not get sufficient electoral votes as compared to Trump.

First, there was seething anger among the white working class men against lack of job opportunities, stagnant wages, jobs being outsourced to developing countries, and manufacturing hubs being moved to China. Their disenchantment over Obama’s policies led to voters’ casting their voters’ for Donald Trump.

Secondly, the white voters were not ready to accept a woman as their president. Never in the history of the United States has a woman been able to make inroads into this male-held bastion. It is for this reason the voters in many white-dominated states showed their preference for Trump.

Thirdly, Clinton’s lost her credibility for using email from her private server. Although the FBI did not find any incriminating evidence against her, the damage was done just before the elections.

Fourthly, there was a growing angst among the whites, bordering on paranoia, on President Obama’s immigration policy. The 9/11 attack, growing terrorism in Europe and other countries had somehow made the Americans paranoid about people coming from a particular religious background. They felt that by electing Trump, the immigration policy would be reversed.

Fifthly, most of the Americans were not happy about Obama’s foreign policy, especially his refusal to commit troops in Syria. They felt that his passive approach resulted in Russia taking full control of the Syrian crisis. Moreover, Russia, under Vladimir Putin, had begun to assert itself in the region, at the cost of the United States. Suddenly, America found that it no longer enjoyed the clout it had once done in the Middle East.

Lastly, Clinton made a tactical mistake by not reaching out to the white voter, especially the working class, and the youth that turned the election upside down by voting for Trump. She also failed to articulate her views on stagnant wages, outsourcing and the immigration policy. Perhaps, people wanted to elect a person who had promised the predominant white community that their interests would be protected.

The Guardian in its editorial “The Guardian’s view of Trump’s foreign policy: a threat to peace” commented that “for Donald Trump, politics — like business — is about deal making. He thinks man-to-man talk with dictators can instantly dissolve problems, and approaches foreign affairs as a zero sum game in which making America great can mean demeaning its traditional friends. His election makes the world a more dangerous place and also a more uncertain place, for it is too early to say precisely how those dangers will materialise — nor how the next US president will face up to them.”

There is, reportedly, apprehension both in China and Pakistan that Trump may adopt a tough posture against them. In fact, a leading Pakistani newspaper stated that he might support India at the cost of Pakistan. However, such fear is misplaced as he has made known his views on outsourcing of jobs to the developing countries. His policy is likely to affect the Indian IT industries in a major way as most of their income accrues from the US companies.

However, in spite of his idiosyncrasies, one must lose not sight of the fact that America has a vibrant democracy with adequate checks and balances. It would be virtually impossible for one person to take unilateral decisions. We have seen in the past how the Congress had stymied many crucial bills introduced by the Obama government. Moreover, the United States should realise that it no longer lives in a unipolar world where it had once been able to pressurise countries with its economic and military might. The world has changed today with both Russia and China asserting their dominance at the world stage.

Once Trump assumes the office, he would soon realise that it is no longer prudent to impose America’s will over other countries. He would be compelled to adopt a more nuanced and flexible approach by taking countries likes Russia and China along with him if he wants to retain the US influence. In spite of all his foibles, we must give respect to the verdict of the American voters, and give Donald Trump a chance to succeed.

The writer is a freelance columnist and political commentator