The end of Trump's phenomenon?

Can Donald Trump be marked by a tendency alarming for the American political system?

We discuss this and other issues with the human rights activist, vice president of the organization Freedom House Arche Paddington , sociologist Boris Doktorov , American publicist David Satther and culturalist professor at the University of California Vladimir Papern .

On October 13, during the pre -election rally, the candidate of the Republican Party Donald Trump turned to his supporters with the fact that the CNN television company called "an apocalyptic call for weapons." “The corrupt ruling circles know that we represent the great danger of their criminal enterprise,” Trump proclaimed in the West Palm Beach in Florida . “Believe me, this is the struggle for the survival of our country. This is our last chance to preserve it.” The call to rally behind Trump’s back in order to save American civilization followed a week after the video recording of eleven years ago , on which Trump is extremely rude, unprinting about women. This video recording of a short conversation, judging by the polls of public opinion, inflicted, it is possible, a fatal blow to Donald Trump's candidacy.

The video of a short conversation, judging by the polls of public opinion, inflicted, it is possible, a fatal blow to Donald Trump's candidacy

Following her appearance from Trump, prominent politicians from his own party began to refuse. The informal head of the Republicans, the speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan canceled joint election events with Trump, and later actually announced that the Republican congressmen did not take vote for another candidate if they believe that they demand the interests of their electorate.

It was clearly discouraged that the conversation in the distant past did what he could not do a dozen of his rivals in the nomination, trying to put him as an incompetent, not ready for the role of the president of the candidate, Trump tried to respond with a blow to the blow. He decided to make a conversation about Bill Clinton’s sexual sins and accuse Hillary Clinton of either covering them or, even worse, humiliated her husband's victims.

Trump arranged a press conference with three women who claimed that they were in the last object of Clinton's sexual harassment. An attempt to captivate the press and voters with sexy scandals associated with Bill Clinton did not work. The last high -profile pre -election argument of Donald Trump was the accusation of the press, political establishment, financial institutions and the election headquarters Clinton in conspiracy to prevent his victory and victory of American voters. He and his movement, as Trump assures, became a victim of a conspiracy, in the center of which the Almighty political machine Clinton, which is served by the press. "Corporate media in our country is no longer engaged in journalism. They represent political interests and are no different from lobbyists," Trump insists.

The idea of fighting a hostile system, exciting participants in the rallies of supporters of Donald Trump, where, incidentally, they often chant the call to send Clinton for bars, remained alien to most voters. Clinton ratings are at the highest level in the last months. Trump is almost 7 percent behind her.

- Is it possible today, judging by the results of polls of public opinion, to conclude that the scandalous video finally destroyed Trump's chances to win the election?

“I would say if everything will be preserved as it is now, like the last days, then yes,” says Boris doctors . -If the sky falls to the ground or something else, then we will look again everything. The first debate, in my opinion, changed the whole picture, and the sexual scandal simply added something. The first debates showed that Hillary could, what Donald can.

- And what, in fact, did they show?

- They showed weakness, the endless weakness of Trump in foreign policy, in domestic politics, in relation to what is called in America, to ethnic or national minorities, neglect of women - this was all obvious, it was all before, but there is already such a bouquet that there was nowhere else.

- Vladimir Paperny, maybe this sudden record with the sexual revelations of the presidential candidate actually determine the outcome of the presidential election?

If Trump had not inherited millions, he would be a seller of used cars

“I believe that Trump has never had a chance to become president of the United States,” says Vladimir Paperny . - If you look at the ratio of votes in the board of electors, then it has always been with the unusual advantage of Hillary. I think that the media were interested in escalating the conflict and saying that the outcome of the elections was unclear, but it was clear to serious analysts from the very beginning. A very similar situation occurred in 1992 with a man named Ross Perra, who also suddenly left, his program was very similar. Trump is an amazingly uninteresting person who is interesting to talk about. If he had not inherited his millions, he would be a seller of used cars, where his combination of self -confidence and some dishonesty within the law would be perfect. But he inherited millions and, instead of used cars, sells skyscrapers.

- Arch Paddington, how do you explain the Trump phenomenon, his stunning take -off, then, unsinkability under the blows of rivals, and suddenly a sudden loss of height, almost a crash?

The appearance of this entry and the debate turned out to be the last nail driven into the coffin of Trump's candidacy - this will determine the election.

“From the moment Donald Trump entered into the struggle for nomination from the republican party, the attention of the press turned out to be concentrated precisely on him, on his unusual personality space, on his provocative statements, on his self -sinking, on personal, and not political attacks on opponents,” says Arch Paddington . - Thanks to Trump, the personal life of the candidates, including intimate, all the insubifications were in the spotlight, became an important part of the presidential campaign, which had not been before. It was in this context that Trump’s recording appeared, who simply puts up a presidential candidate in an ugly light. Moreover, this is not someone's story-these are his own words that you can hear. Most of the Americans, no matter who they support, Trump or Clinton, asked themselves a natural question: do I want to see as the president of a person who allows myself to say so even in private? Obviously, those voters who conclude on the basis of political reasons will vote for their candidate. In the case of Trump, these are those who like his proposal to restrict free trade, the expulsion of illegal migrants from the country or restriction on the entry of Muslims. In the case of Clinton, these are those who welcome the classic left -time ideas for a significant expansion of state support for the least wealthy sections of the population. But for those who did not decide, the negative aspects of Trump’s personality, which were demonstrated thanks to this episode, became a decisive factor three weeks before the election. Let us not forget that the defiant manner of Trump's behavior, his constant insults against opponents, that he, by the way, demonstrated during the debate with Hillary Clinton, completely contradict the American tradition. In my opinion, the appearance of this entry and the debate turned out to be the last nail driven into the coffin of Trump's candidacy - this will determine the elections.

- David Satter, a reproach for the press for what she made from Trump a figure, which he was not. Do you think he rose so high?

“To answer this question, you need to know the details of his business career, ” says David Satter . - I do not have these data. Obviously, he did something right, because he, by all signs, became a very rich person. The only thing I would say that if we are talking about personalities, I consider Trump more interesting than Hillary, because Hillary made her career thanks to her husband's success. This is a purely bureaucratic person, although she can, like any lawyer, work with facts. She has no signs of a worldview. If we are talking about Trump, he is completely uneducated and non -informed, but he has several ideas that he expresses. Therefore, I think, the situation that we have in America is very sad. We have more than one bad candidate, we actually have two bad candidates. What I see in the media is just such tendencies, as we saw in 1996, when Yeltsin ran for the second time in Russia in Russia. Maybe this is not as extreme as in Russia, but America is a less extreme country than Russia.

- David, how do you, as an American and professional journalism, regard that the presidential campaign has turned into grinding the dirty underwear of lawyers? I do not remember anything like this for my two decades in America.

Our main means of information write poorly about Trump, by the way, they write correctly about Trump and are completely silent about Clinton, against which the charges can be made

- I have not seen either. This, of course, is upset, but it was inevitable due to the quality of candidates. I see that maybe our main means of information write poorly about Trump, by the way, write correctly about Trump and completely silent about Clinton, against which you can make charges that are just as or more serious than those that were brought against Trump. In principle, this situation is a great failure of American democracy that we have precisely the presidential race that we have.

- Boris doctors, sociologists say that the Americans are most concerned about the state of economics and the country's security, and the outcome of the elections, as experts suggest, may depend on whether new exposure films will appear with Donald Trump's sebaceous conversations, which he clearly fears. Paradox?

- No, the fact is that, according to the same criteria, both were selected and selected. The victory of the Democrats in 2016 was generally predicted back in 2012, if the candidate from the Democratic Party would generally adhere to the Kennedy, Clinton, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Because Barack Obama in 2008 stimulated the participation in the elections of fundamentally new groups, ethnic groups, I mean African Americans, Latinos, immigrants from Asian countries and so on. He attracted the attention of youth, new generations. Calculations of both demographers and sociologists show that the general -fitting social trend in America in this direction. Even, in my opinion, Sanders's huge success and Trump's great success is, especially the first, that they found problems close to young people. In one case, Sanders are sharply social issues, in the other case, conservative, but still.

- Vladimir Paperny, Boris doctors says that Sanders and Trump found a language that connects them with voters, but there is another interpretation of this phenomenon: dangerous populism. I remember that many observers stigered Sanders as a utopian socialist and revolutionary. Is this an alarming trend for you?

- There is an extremely interesting book “Democracy for realists”, which two political scientists Christopher Aken and Larry Barters wrote, where they, on the basis of an analysis of a large number of sociological polls, come to the conclusion that people do not vote, because they like the program, in most cases people can not even remember what kind of candidate was the program, and people vote for those whom they can vote for those who they think they think your own. An extremely interesting book, and it explains a lot in what is happening now, in particular, with Trump. There is a large group of people who feel that progress passes by them, it includes workers' car factories that are not needed because cars make robots, they are against globalization. There are young people without education who understand that they will never go to college. These people, who were outside of progress, outside the ship of our time, as Mayakovsky would say, they found the way out of their problems in the person of Trump.

-Well, the fact that Trump, who is called a dangerous populist-demagogue, many experts are so popular, is not worried about his success as some other commentators?

- I do not know any other elections that would not be like that. The uniqueness of these is that people have ceased to restrain themselves in expressions.

- I do not remember the debate, during which one candidate says to another: you are the devil in the soul.

The licentiousness of the language is unprecedented, but the demagogy is standard

- The licentiousness of the language is unprecedented, but demagogy is standard.

-David Satter, when they look at what is happening in the United States from abroad, is a reason for ridicule, for bullying and even for propaganda in the Russian case. Putin says to his people: see what is happening in America, do we need such democracy? What do you, David, feel feelings when you look at what is happening in the United States in this presidential campaign?

- This is very sad. You might agree, I think, in one thing that Hillary Clinton, as a Secretary of State, behaved irresponsibly, and this was confirmed by the head of the FBI. The secret information that she was responsible to save and protect, and she did not do this - it disqualifies her enough as a candidate for the presidency. But Trump has other disqualifying factors. When we have two candidates of this poor quality.

- David, you just give the material in the hands of the Kremlin propagandists, branding American democracy.

American democracy as a system works, but this does not mean that it cannot experience a crisis

- American democracy as a system works, but this does not mean that it cannot experience a crisis as a result of a combination of circumstances. Any system, the most effective, most perfect, is still vulnerable to human mistakes. In America, in comparison with Russia, we have the opportunity to correct our mistakes. I think it doesn’t matter if the new president is Trump or Clinton, the system gives us such an opportunity. In principle, everything is very sad here, but I hope that there will be nothing fatal here.

- Arch Paddington, many people outside America are observed with amazement for this campaign. Vladimir Putin, his Chinese counterparts use it as an instrument of anti -American propaganda, they say, look at American democracy. Do you have a counterargument?

I would say that this is humiliating for the American political class for a year, there is no doubt about it

- I would say that this is humiliating for the American political class for a year, there is no doubt about it. Donald Trump managed to reduce the presidential campaign to his own level, turned it into a kind of entertaining television show. It is not surprising that all this does not look in the most attractive way from the outside. But as a result, Hillary Clinton will come to power, a politician in a traditional American sense, standing mainly in levoliberal positions, but with elements of centrism. With regard to the future, these elections leave a sense of anxiety. Trump’s experience, who for some time went on a par with Clinton, can inspire enthusiasm to those who see how successful the candidate with populist slogans can become if he does not make Trump's mistakes. An important factor contributing to the success of such candidates is the popularity of the Internet as an instrument of the election struggle, in the space of which there are no restrictions for self-expression.

- Boris doctors, the Russian topic almost every day appears in the news headlines of the American press. Hillary Clinton during both debate stated that the Kremlin is on the side of Trump, the American authorities are making statements that Russia is trying to shake the American democratic process. Maybe from your point of view, the Russian factor will affect the outcome of the elections, that is, to play in favor of Hillary Clinton?

-Firstly, I do not think that the Russian topic is one of the central, it is fastened. Suppose, in one case, it is fastened to the general Syrian problem, and if Russia had not entered this war, then Russia would not have appeared in all these reasoning. Secondly, no, I think Russian themes and minds of Americans also do not occupy.

– Но существует прослойка людей, эмигрантов из прибалтийских республик или, точнее, стран Балтии, с Украины, мы знаем, в Соединенных Штатах довольно большая украинская община, которая сохраняет связи с Украиной, вот эти люди на обочине, на окраине голосования, они не могут помочь Клинтон?

– Вы посчитайте проценты их, чем же они могут помочь?

– Можно теоретически предположить, что если они находятся в колеблющихся штатах, то их голоса могут оказать влияние на общий исход выборов, не так ли?

– Может быть, это во Флориде, где много русских эмигрантов и так далее. Но в принципе это анализировать, мне кажется, очень неинтересно.

– Дэвид, вам интересно анализировать российский фактор? Я не припомню, чтобы российский фактор, по крайней мере после окончания холодной войны, был столь заметной темой в президентских выборах. What is the matter?

Я думаю, что российский фактор используют, чтобы подкрепить впечатление, что Хиллари очень компетентный лидер

– Я думаю, что российский фактор используют, чтобы подкрепить впечатление, что Хиллари очень компетентный лидер. Трамп этому способствует своими непродуманными высказываниями. Конечно, будучи госсекретарем, Хиллари демонстрировала, что она не очень много понимает в русских делах, но сейчас по сравнению с Трампом она старается создать иное впечатление. Независимо от этого, я не думаю, что русский фактор будет влиять сильно на результат, потому что результат выборов будет определен во внутренних вопросах.

– Дэвид, вы, да и все наши собеседники склонны считать Россию ничтожным фактором президентской кампании в США, но два дня назад американские власти впервые публично увязали российское руководство с хакерами, взламывающими компьютеры американских политиков, а Клинтон и многие американские законодатели и эксперты говорят, что Кремль замахнулся – ни много ни мало – на подрыв американской избирательной системы. Владимир Путин в их интерпретации выглядит реальной угрозой Америке.

– Я не знаю, может быть они стараются. Но я считаю, что причина, что они сделают такие заявления, чтобы отвлечь внимание от содержания этой информации, которую обнародовал WikiLeaks

– Вы имеете в виду антиклинтоновскую информацию о ее разговорах с финансистами и другими донорами?

– Да, потому что они, безусловно, не хотят, чтобы люди обратили внимание на это, включая, между прочим, все лестные слова Клинтон в адрес Путина всего несколько лет назад, которого она сейчас проклинает.

– Борис Докторов, в последние дни видные республиканцы начали отмежевываться от Дональда Трампа. Демократы заговорили о том, что недовольство избирателей Трампом может помочь им вернуть большинство в Сенате и даже Палате представителей. Is it possible?

– Сенат они могут потерять, по-моему, Палата представителей останется за ними. Но речь может даже идти о другом, это более серьезно, потому что захватывает уже не 2016 год и ближайшие годы политической активности Конгресса, Сената, а будущее. Речь идет вообще о модели Республиканской партии и о модели Демократической партии, об их философии. На самом деле то, что произошло сейчас с выборами Дональда Трампа, появление Берни Сандерса, с социологической точки зрения крайне интересно и крайне вопросительно, в том смысле, что содержит массу вопросов. Партии устаревают, их представления о населении устаревают, их представления об установках людей устаревают, их представления о месте Америки в глобальном мире устаревают. Таким образом, мне представляется, что в ближайшие четыре года и республиканцы, и демократы должны сосредоточиться на вопросах о философии своих партий.

– Но пока партии будут формулировать свои новые философии, лидеры-демагоги овладеют вниманием недовольных масс – на Трампа сейчас приходится больше сорока процентов электората – и поведут их на баррикады. На митингах Трампа звучат призывы о необходимости борьбы с системой, которой манипулирует истеблишмент. Дэвид Саттер, есть такая опасность?

– Это тревожный фактор, это волнует. Я думаю, из-за этого республиканцы не смогли выдвинуть приличного кандидата, который бы легко справился с Клинтон. Это значит, что в стране есть огромное недовольство, это можно даже ожидать, имея в виду экономические условия и факт, что американская экономика до сих пор не работает на таком уровне эффективности, как она работала раньше.

– Арч Паддингтон, создает ли это, с вашей точки зрения, угрозу американской политической системе? Ведь, в отличие от многих демократических стран, в США никогда прежде не обретали реальной силы кандидаты с крайними взглядами: ни нацисты, ни коммунисты. А об опасности авторитаризма Трампа заговорили с опаской даже видные американские комментаторы.

Если в Белом доме окажется не подходящий для этой должности человек – это будет ужасно

– То, о чем вы говорите, является поводом для беспокойства. У феномена Трампа есть прецедент, если вспомнить выборы 1968 года, кампанию Джорджа Уоллеса, колоритного демагога, взгляды которого базировались на расовых предрассудках. Но у него была реальная поддержка лишь в некоторых южных штатах, пытавшихся сохранить систему расовой дискриминации. В разгар кампании его поддерживало максимум 30 процентов избирателей. Уровень поддержки Дональда Трампа выше. Я думаю, это свидетельство того, что в Соединенных Штатах значительное число людей, недовольных состоянием экономики, немалый процент американцев обеспокоен резкими и быстрыми социальными переменами, взять хотя бы однополые браки, превратившиеся в реальность всего в течение нескольких лет, или массовую незаконную миграцию, или так называемый диалог по проблеме расизма, который с точки зрения значительной части белых американцев превратился в кампанию, направленную против них. Феномен Трампа показывает, что его блок может победить на президентских выборах. Но в Соединенных Штатах существует децентрализованная система управления, у нас есть Конгресс, большинство в котором сейчас принадлежит не партии президента, у нас есть независимая судебная система. У нас, в конце концов, есть две главные партии, являющиеся противовесом друг другу. Не забудем значительные полномочия и права, принадлежащие штатам, где и решается большинство важных для общества вопросов. Система, где президент не обладает полнотой власти, гораздо меньше поддается манипуляции. Но в любом случае, если в Белом доме окажется не подходящий для этой должности человек – это будет ужасно.