Trump against America

-Do you agree with the opinion that the US political system after the 2016 elections will no longer be the same-no matter whether Donald Trump will become the president or not?

- In general, the American political system, of course, will not change in any way, because it is based on the fundamental principles laid down in the constitution. And the presidential election is just one of the components of the federal electoral process. Here the question is different: we are observing the crisis within traditional parties. For a long time, the confrontation of the two parties - republican and democratic - determined the outcome of the federal electoral process. Of course, independent candidates also participated in the elections, but the Republican or Democrat necessarily became the president. These two parties have fundamental principles. For example, democrats support medium and small businesses, protect minorities. Republicans lobby for the interests of the military -industrial complex and disseminate conservative values. However, for the first time in modern political history in the Republican Party, the non -systemic candidate - Donald Trump wins on primaries. On the one hand, he is a rich and smug American - a quite typical Republican. But there were always people with rich political experience: congressmen, governors, vice presidents. And for the first time, a businessman and a showman become a candidate, who used to be just one of the financial donors of both parties.

- Candidates such as Trump and Sanders are ruining the usual ideological boundaries of their parties.

- Yes, Trump is not so close to systemic Republicans: he adheres to extreme views that can even scare such “extra -systemic” personalities as Lyndon Larush and Patrick Buchenin . There are some more questions to Sanders. He is a senator, for a long time works in the legislative branch, he has a great political experience. In this sense, he can be considered a system candidate. True, he also moved a little from the general attitudes of the Democratic Party: he is called a socialist, he offers things that are absolutely unusual for system democrats. But he is the purest water politician who very often changed his views during his career. His rhetoric here acts as a kind of own “chip”.

And who, if not Trump? He easily dealt with competitors, he is one of those who are boring to listen to. But to come to the November “superfinal” with the same radical rhetoric as on the primaries, means to lose.

This is the point. Back in 2012, it was clear that there was a Clinton in the Democratic Party, and there are all the rest. She even left the Secretary of State to begin to prepare for the presidential campaign - look at what she has been in time in time. She was the wife of the Governor of Arkansas, the first lady, a Senator from the state of New York, participated in the 2008 presidential campaign, then took up the post of Secretary of State. Who could compete with her? There were no suitable names. And in order to somehow break this non-alternativeness, any candidate had to surprise the voters. The image of Sanders was such a surprise that allowed him to somehow delay the Clinton's nomination. Many thought: what if he succeeds? But from the very beginning I was sure that it was not for long - Clinton had a very strong headquarters, they quickly ate Sanders. However, we must pay tribute to him: he actively fought, in many states, even seriously patted Clinton's nerves. By the way, the problem of the Republicans is precisely that they did not find the same candidate who could devalue the “unusual” Trump.

- Trump nuclear electorate is usually drawn as “angry” white men with a low level of education and income. Do the Republican support any serious groups of influence?

- Trump's electorate is really a white population, a large percentage is uneducated youth, farmers. As for groups of influence, the situation is not in his favor. If we are talking about the military -industrial complex, then he is for Clinton: she has always been their lobbyist and is actively cooperating with the military for a long time. Although traditionally a military-industrial lobby is the patrimony of the Republican Party, Trump does not even like it: it is absolutely unpredictable. Oil lobbyists also like Clinton more. Perhaps Trump will support some private financial groups, a construction business with which he is closely connected. This is another paradox of this campaign: those lobbyists who, it would seem, should support the Republican of Trump, are actually supporting Democrat Clinton.

Trump was not taken seriously until the last, even when he won national debates for others. No one provided him with support, did not meet him. Even political technologists appeared in him only after the debate.

If we talk about ethnic groups, then everything is on the side of Clinton, starting from an influential Irish diaspora, which controls the Catholic electorate of the United States and without which it is almost impossible to win in the state of Massachusetts. The Israeli diaspora, which has been supporting the Republicans for a long time, is also putting on Clinton today - they do not like the radical rhetoric of Trump against migrants and his statements about the revision of the US obligations in relation to their strategic allies. Clinton for a long time supported the Israeli lobby and has experience with Israel. The same with the Armenian diaspora, which has a significant impact in such states as California, New Jersey and Rhizda-Alend. True, everything is a little more complicated here - the American Armenians are offended by all candidates, because they promise to recognize genocide from year to year, but they do not call this word. But in general, this is a production electorate.

- Republicans, obviously, are not too satisfied with the position of their candidate. Is such a scenario possible that after Trump’s victory on the primaries, the party leadership will simply refuse him a nomination?

- Theoretically, this is possible, but practically - hardly. Now Trump has no comprehensive support for the superdeligas. He is disliked by the party leaders in Congress (for example, the speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan and the leader of the Senate majority of Mitch MacConnell) and the General American Republican elite-famous Republicans who have already completed their careers (Bush Jr. or Mitt Romny). But the question is now different: and who, if not Trump? He easily dealt with competitors, says unsystematic things, he is one of those who are unusual for listening - assertive, aggressive. But the November “superfinal” is a serious thing enough, and to come to it with the same radical rhetoric as on primaries means to lose.

The situation is aggravated by the internal crisis of the Republican Party. For a long time, the Republicans lost the majority in Congress-after Bush Jr., the party was split. They were able to unite only after the intermediate elections of 2014, when for the first time in a long time they regained the majority in both wards. And, of course, they do not want to lose now, because any defeat can lead to a new round of the crisis and the dominance of the democrats in the Congress. Therefore, you need to support Trump so as not to aggravate the split and save the majority in the future elections to Congress. In this sense, Trump has a trump card, he can say the party: "You have no choice, I will set my conditions." There is also the fault of the party leadership itself: Trump was not taken seriously until the last, even when he won national debates for others. No one provided him with support, did not meet him. Even political technologists appeared in him only after the debate, and even then not the same level as those who usually consult republican candidates. The elite went against him to the last.

Trump managed to configure the entire “color” electorate against himself: Latin American and African Americans.

If the party leadership And in November it will go against, Trump can leave the party and advance as an independent candidate. Such a precedent was in 1912, when theodore Roosevelt scored more votes of electors on the primaries of the Variants than his opponent William Taft, but Taft was nominated at the party congress. Roosevelt left the Republicans, created his own party and moved on to the polls, but lost them to Democrat Woodlon Wilson. But I do not think that the repetition of such a scenario is likely. There are signals that Trump will succeed in agreeing with the leadership: some Republicans make statements that Hillary they like even less and need to unite the party. Paul Ryan recently met Trump - they had a four -hour conversation behind closed doors. I think Trump once agreed on his position with the party leadership and in November will be released as a much more restrained candidate.

- For what states will the main struggle take place at the Superfinal stage?

- The entire American electoral system is built on the struggle for the oscillating states. The struggle will not go for all 50 states - it is always clear that there is a wreck and pronounced states. Already today we can say that, whoever is a representative from the Republicans, Clinton will win in California, and in Texas - the Republican. The struggle will go for the states that have not yet been decided: for Florida, Virginia, Nevada and to some extent for Northern Carolina. So far, Clinton wins in these states. The reason is that Trump managed to configure the entire “colored” electorate against himself: Latin American and African American. In Florida, the largest oscillating state, the Latin American electorate, namely the Cuban diaspora, will play a key role, and they will not cast their vote to Trump. In Nevada and Virginia - the African American electorate. In fact, the decision will be behind an organized minority, and not for the majority. The current indicators suggest that 71% of the “color” electorate is supported by Clinton. Trump pushed away those people who since the 2000s supported the Republicans. This is catastrophic statistics for the "elephants". And how can Trump count on something in November with such results?

- Trump is famous for the inconsistency of his statements. Is it realistic to strengthen its position among the “color” electorate due to changes in rhetoric?

- There is such an opportunity. One of the steps could be the advance of Trump Ben Carson as his vice president. Karson was a candidate from the Republican Party for current primaries, he is an African American, a well -known doctor, Protestant, moreover, an adherent of the Church of Adventists of the seventh -day. This fact is of great importance, because serious African American elites are associated with this direction, and Karson has a certain authority among them. Although Trump can partially return the African American electorate, there are factors that leave most “color” democrats. This is the factor of Barack Obama, which is the first African American president and publicly supports Clinton. This is Bill Clinton, who is very fond of African Americans: the former mayor of Atlanta even called him the first black president of America, because Clinton was the first to bring four African American politicians to the White House. In addition, most of the African Americans live on the verge of poverty and receive state benefits. Republicans will never advocate an increase in benefits - only democrats are engaged in this from year to year. One way or another, I think that at least 60% of the vote of Black America Clinton already secured itself.

Even if all 10 candidates from the Republican Party had put their budgets, Clinton would still have a total advantage.

It will be even more difficult to return the Latin American electorate if you take into account that Trump allowed himself extremely offensive statements to them. During the debate, in which the former governor of Florida Jeb Bush, married to Latin American, participated, a serious dispute ensued between the candidates. Bush told Trump that he was obliged to apologize to his wife. This caused a great resonance in the country, and now the Trump's trust rating among the Latin American actually at zero. If he has an agreement with the party leadership and he will be more restrained, then perhaps the elite will play the factors of Ted Cruise and Marco Rubio : they are both Latin American, ethnic Cubans. It may be possible to persuade them to openly support Trump. Like, he did not understand much and now apologizes for his incomprehensible statements. Then, perhaps, there will be some fracture.

- Another important factor in the American elections is the candidate's access to financial resources. Does Clinton leave Trump far behind this criterion?

- Clinton has no competitors at all. Even if all 10 candidates from the Republican Party had put their budgets, Clinton would still have a total advantage. First of all, she has a very rich experience in collecting money. The Clinton Family Foundation uses a cross -financing strategy: to get around legislative restrictions, the money is not directed directly to the fund, but, for example, to buy airtime on CNN or to organize a charity evening in Washington. Or some billionaire asks the Clinton family with the opportunity to spend a joint dinner with them, for which he will pay 20-30 thousand dollars. Such cases are no longer considered financing the candidate.

It is very likely that in the next cycle of the presidential election, we will observe the stubborn struggle of candidates from three parties.

In the November campaign, money will be one of the key factors - they solve a lot. For example, if Clinton is able to buy 100 hours of airtime, and Trump is only 50, then, of course, Clinton will win more than the electorate. Or if Clinton can afford 25 articles in The Wall Street Journal , and Trump is only 5. Because people learn about candidates through TV and newspapers. There are quite primitive moments: for example, renting a bus to drive through all American cities. Clinton with her finances can afford to visit even the smallest villages and lead a full -fledged campaign there, which Trump cannot, although he was a billionaire and all the primaries sponsored himself.

-Any of other candidates can weaken Clinton’s position in the confrontation with Trump in Superfinal? For example, the same Sanders, who continues the struggle, despite the lack of chances of the nomination.

- This is unlikely. Even if Sanders himself does not like Clinton, during the “Superfinal” he will still support his party. Otherwise, Sanders risks ruining his image. Americans love candidates who are worthy of defeat. He must thank Clinton and support her, and if he begins to play behind her, he will lose the electorate that managed to love him.

Another question is that another candidate nominated from the Libertarian Party - Gary Johnson. This is the former Governor of New Mexico. He participated in the 2012 campaign, then managing to gain a record number of votes for the party - 1.3 million. In recent years, Libertarians gradually become one of the key political factors of the American electoral process. And here, by the way, Johnson can threaten both Trump and Clinton. This will depend on which program it will be released in November. If Johnson is able to beat the 2012 record and influence the outcome of Trump and Clinton’s struggle, it is very likely that in the next cycle of the presidential election, we will observe the stubborn struggle of candidates from three parties.

The personality in the American political system is just a manager. The founding fathers developed it in such a way as to minimize the risks of usurpation of power.

- You do not consider Trump a threat to the future of the United States. Then, perhaps, his presidency could become a kind of crash test, excess confirmation of the strength of the political system?

- I do not consider Trump a serious test for America. Everything that he says now, he says as a candidate. While you are a candidate, you can be radically configured and say anything, without taking into account the group of interests, public organizations and a congress, you need to win. But in the role of the President you accept a completely different level of responsibility: you are on the table of intelligence, the Ministry of Economics, the State Department and other bodies. You see the real state of affairs, you understand that you are responsible for any decision made, and you already forget about what you said, being a candidate. As John Kennedy said in one of the first interviews after winning the election: "Most of all I was surprised by the fact that everything was as bad in the country as we said."

With all his desire, Trump simply cannot do anything. The personality in the American political system is just a manager, the head of the executive system. The founding fathers-Franklin, Madison, Hamilton-developed it in such a way as to fully minimize the risks of any usurpation of power or a radical change in the political system. You go into the oval office, and political reality begins. На тебя тут же накладываются юридические рамки, главная из которых — это Конституция США. Внутри администрации у тебя есть разные люди, разные центры, лоббисты, министерства. На законодательном уровне есть Конгресс, разделенный на две палаты, без согласования с которым ты не сможешь провести ни один закон.

Посмотрите, как в Белый дом пришел Обама. Во время первого срока у него были амбициозные идеи: мы все изменим, слоган « Yes , we can » . А теперь взгляните на итоги — он не успел выполнить даже 10% своих обещаний, во внешней политике есть плюсы, но есть и провалы. Все эти идеи — вернем стране величие, реанимируем американскую мечту — это то, что от вас хотят услышать и во что хотят верить, но их приходится отложить в сторону. Я уверен, что Трамп — не такая фигура, которая может полностью изменить Америку. Тем более проблем там накопилось столько, что понадобится не одно поколение президентов, чтобы решить хотя бы часть.

Арег Галстян — кандидат исторических наук, колумнист журналов The National Interest, «Россия в глобальной политике», Forbes (Россия)