‘A world of a difference between Democrats and Republicans’

Donald Trump, who leads the field in the contest for the Republican Party nomination for the US presidency, has managed to alienate a majority of US citizens while maintaining his popularity with angry, marginalised, largely male, white voters.

While he never had the backing of Democrats or liberal independents, he repeatedly antagonised women, Hispanics, Afro-Americans, young voters and the powerful hardline pro-Israel lobby, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 

According to opinion surveys, if nominated, Trump could enter the race against the Democratic candidate with a 67 per cent negative rating.

According to Ariel Edwards-Levy, writing onThe Huffington Post website, “the only recent candidate with comparably low ratings is former [racist Ku Klux Klan] leader David Duke” who campaigned unsuccessfully in 1992.

Duke extended his support to Trump this time round and it took Trump four days to disavow his offer, creating consternation in the ranks of Trump’s campaign team.

A listing published by The Washington Post shows Democratic Party frontrunner Hillary Clinton comes next in the unfavourable ratings stakes, with 53 per cent, while Ted Cruz, Trump’s Republican challenger has a 51 per cent negative rating.

Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders, stands at 40 per cent and Republican third man in the field John Kasich at 31 per cent.

Unfortunately, unfavourable ratings do not prevent nominees from getting elected.

Barack Obama’s negative rating stood at 46 per cent in 2012 and 39 per cent in 2008; George W. Bus had a 46 per cent negative rating in 2004 and 39 per cent in 2000; Bill Clinton 43 per cent in 1996 and 41 per cent in 1992; George H.W. Bush 53 per cent in 1992.

Bush senior’s rating was the same as Hillary Clinton’s today.  Therefore, a majority negative rating need not signify defeat, although those who dislike Clinton might be prepared to boycott the presidential poll in November, depending on who has been chosen Republican candidate.

Voters both dislike and fear hawkish Clinton because she remains rooted in 20th century thinking and politics.

She still considers the US to be the world superpower and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation its vehicle for global domination.

She favours the neoconservative policy of surrounding and “containing” Russia, a policy stupidly adopted by Obama which backfired in Ukraine, at great cost to that country.

Clinton supported the rightist Nicaraguan “contras” against a popular rebellion during the 1980s, the 1991 and 2003 Bush wars on Iraq, the disastrous US-European intervention in Libya, and the ongoing effort to oust President Bashar Assad in Syria.

She has also been a consistent and strong supporter of Israel — whatever atrocious policies that country has adopted. Indeed, she went before the recent AIPAC conference and promised to deepen US cooperation with Israel and supply its army with the latest high-tech weaponry that could encourage Israel to wage fresh wars in this already troubled neighbourhood.

She also takes a hard line towards Iran, reflecting the policy of Israel, has been critical of Obama for “waiting too long” to arm Syrian rebels and remains committed to “regime change” in Damascus, no matter what happens if Assad is ousted or who might take charge.

Clinton also has tight connections with US oil and banking interests, which if she is elected, are certain to put pressure on her to evade serious US commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions producing climate change/global warming.

She has raised $222.4 million, 28 per cent from wealthy individuals connected with corporations and interest groups, the rest from donations.

She raised just $19 million from small donors last year.

Sanders is the best bet for the US and the world. Although 74, he is refreshingly young in his approach to both domestic and foreign policy. He is idealistic and not rooted in the neocon camp as Clinton.

Sanders has won over the youth vote and women, although he cannot count on Hispanics and Afro-Americans who favour Clinton.

So far, Sanders’ campaign has raised $139.8 million, 99.88 per cent from donations, 67 per cent from donations of $200 or less.

Although this is $82.6 million less than Clinton, he also relies more on volunteers in his campaign.

Sanders insists that getting Big Money out of politics is the only way to restore democracy in the US. He argues that Wall Street must be reformed and regulated.

On the regional front, Sanders was one of the few who opposed the 1991 and 2003 wars on Iraq and the entanglements which have followed.

The sole Jew in the race and the first to ever stand as a presidential candidate, Sanders was the only candidate to refuse an invitation to the AIPAC conference. He took this decision after 18,000 people signed a petition calling upon him not to appear.

Sanders has not only called for the “two-state solution”, the emergence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but also for equality between Israelis and Palestinians, “for the US treating everybody in that region equally”.

These are refreshing words from a US politician and member of Congress. The legislative arm of the US government has been under Israeli occupation for decades.

On Syria, Sanders would give priority to the defeat of Daesh without the deployment of US troops.  He rejects getting involved in a “quagmire” which is precisely what Obama has done.

While determined not to get embroiled more than necessary, he does not seem to know enough about Syria.

Clinton and Sanders have similar policies on some domestic issues. They support normalisation with Havana, lifting of the decades-old embargo, and travel between the US and Cuba.

They back action against climate change and development of renewable power, and seek immigration reform that would help illegal largely Hispanic immigrants become legal residents.

This said, there is a world of a difference between Clinton and Sanders and between Democrats and Republicans this time round.