Josef Braml: “Democracy in the USA causes serious concerns”

A well-known political expert on America, an employee of one of the leading German thinktanks DGAP, Josef Braml, told Tagespost about some unpleasant behind-the-scene details of the American election campaign. According to the expert, the success of Donald Trump is an indicator of radical trends which are growing in American society. Meanwhile, the real election race is taking place not in TV debates, but in the villas of billionaires who invite candidates for viewing. Vestnik Kavkaza presents an exclusive translation of the interview.

- The American construction baron, the billionaire Donald Trump, according to recent polls, takes the leading position among other republican candidates who are fighting for survival in the presidential elections in 2016. Trump is famous for regular aggressive, sexist and xenophobic statements, including those in the republican debates on August 8th. Despite everybody’s assurances that Trump has no chances of winning in the republican camp, it seems that a part of the American population likes his speeches. What is the reason for this?

-Donald Trump personifies extreme elements of the American electorate, which are becoming more and more significant. He awakens an interest in politics in people who turned away from it long ago. Moreover, Trump presents the views of supporters of a strict policy; and he speaks a simple language. He intentionally addresses the lowest instincts of voters, especially concerning the migration topic. Trump’s populist and even chauvinistic manners clearly demonstrate that racism is still widespread in the USA. It is shown not only in the migration topic, but also in social topics. Social problems and the racism which determines them haven’t disappeared. Moreover, in some spheres they have worsened. Electing Barack Obama to the position of President created an illusion, and many people were enchanted by it.

-Regular reports and articles in the media about Donald Trump are favorable to him. Can his popularity be dispelled by political arguments?

-Trump realizes that he is acting in a world of rational ignorance. People are ignorant about politics and especially about foreign political issues. There are rational reasons for this. People have to work two or three jobs to feed their children. It would be absolutely irrational if they deal with an analysis of all political nuances in this context. However, the main question during the elections is how communication is built in a world of rational ignorance. Trump has realized how he can get people’s trust; he plays on their values, using a simple language talking to them. Therefore, he created communicational channels which are unclear for many political experts and journalists. It is necessary to know how to step beyond the limits of your elite circle to see that common people, primarily in the US, think in a different way. 

- The Republican camp currently has a total of 17 potential presidential candidates. This is an unusually high number of candidates for a pre-inner-party struggle. Behind Donald Trump are the candidates with the highest chance of success, such as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker. They are almost on a par. What does such a large number of candidates, among whom the unequivocal favorite still stands, say?

- We should give up the notion that US policy is determined by a party. Even in the political debate in the Congress the parties do not play absolutely any role. They can be compared rather with the electoral alliance. But even in this minimum feature they, in mind of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the financing of election campaigns, have to give a scene to the  so-called Political Action Committees (PACs), or Super PACs, which are funded by billionaires.

- That is to say, the decisive role in the election campaign is played by billionaires?

- In fact, it makes no sense to concentrate on the 17 candidates. It is necessary to focus on the few who are selected as the ‘bride’. We can formulate it in this way: the American billionaires are looking for a new president. Here, first of all, we should note the two oil tycoons Charles and David Koch. The most promising Republican candidates are invited to their luxury properties. It is precisely  there that a tangible election race becomes real, and not on a screening of the republican debate show on the Fox News channel. The Koch brothers alone finance the election campaign in excess of a billion dollars to handle the electoral base and encourage other billionaires to do the same on their part. Such meetings are always more interesting, because there, to a much greater extent, the fates of the candidates are decided. Party officials even complain that the PAC which belongs to the Koch brothers does not share the data it collects with the parties. This means that the most influential billionaires manage their own electoral movements and collect their own data, this is extremely important during the election campaigns. Both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, compared with this are, in fact, not in the best position. So they play only the role of extras in the election campaign .

- Hillary Clinton is still considered the most promising candidate for the Democrats. But lately her rating in the opinion polls is falling. This is due, in particular, to the fact that she has refused for a long time to provide information about her private mail server, which is used for work correspondence. In addition, she is criticized for the fact that she is far from the people. Can the Trump factor that attracts public attention play into the hands of Clinton and distract the public from her recent missteps?

- Do not overestimate the survey data and ratings, since they tend to change very fast. Trump is, for me, to varying degrees, an indicator of anger within the Republican electorate. This anger must be taken seriously, as Americans are becoming more radical in many respects. Even if Trump does not win the election, the next president will have to deal somehow with this bitterness and cynicism of the electorate. And I think this is a big problem for American democracy.

- The problem ia a serious challenge not only for the US but also for the European countries ...

- Right. Strengthening populist parties in Europe only proves that the anger and discontent of voters is growing. The political philosopher William Galston of the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington, DC, who is largely responsible for the victory of Bill Clinton  in the presidential election in the 1990s, has an opinion that the days of liberal Western democracies have passed. They are no longer able to generate the desired well-being, resulting in shaken entrenched orders. By this Galston means mainly Europe, particularly Greece. He should, however, look at the demagogues in his own country.

- Whom do you mean?

- I mean not just Trump, and, above all, the Tea-Party movement (Tea-Party), which is the ultra-right-wing of the Republicans. Because this alleged electoral movement was also brought to life by the oil tycoons Charles and David Koch. They want to prevent the state from interfering in the country's destiny. If this cannot be achieved completely, the ability of the state can be blocked at least. And that, to one degree or another, has been done since the election to Congress in 2010. Obama has been blocked at the legislative level, and we can be quite sure that the next president will be blocked by the Tea Party, if he tries to start carrying out extensive environmental, energy, economic and social policies, regardless of whether he or she is a Republican or a Democrat. This is because there is no party discipline.

- Clinton has tried to consider Trump’s performance and his views not in an isolated mode, but to extrapolate it to the entire Republican camp. If you do not take into account some of the differences in the wording, according to Clinton, all the potential Republican candidates largely share common views and attitudes. Could this be a successful strategy for Clinton?

- The ‘domestic’ issue of Hillary Clinton is that she is financed by Wall Street, but  now she is trying to present herself as a candidate who has rediscovered ‘ordinary Americans’. She can hardly afford this. This is also reflected in the popularity of her party colleague Bernie Sanders. She will encounter much more serious problems with him than all those that have been so far.

If you recall the actions of her husband Bill Clinton on the issue of deregulation of the financial markets, it is clear that this was a policy in the interests of Wall Street. By the way, Barack Obama also gave top positions to bankers on Wall Street, who during the Clinton times had stood at the head of deregulation and thereby had shared the responsibility for the financial crisis that came later. It was not just the fault of the ‘evil Republicans’, but also the Democrats considered more preferred in Germany. The fact that the Republicans are more dependent on the oil industry, and the Democrats in Wall Street, is an open secret in the United States. When evaluating US policy this factor also must be considered. And people like Hillary Clinton following the social-liberal course and advocating a fair distribution of wealth is unlikely. I doubt that the behavior of Clinton looks plausible.

- How big is the chance that one of the intra-party rivals of Clinton will be able to challenge her candidacy?

- That will not happen, because they do not have enough money for that. Although few seriously expected that Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, could complicate the life of Hillary Clinton so much. And if you look at the leading media crowds neglected for a long time rushing to the electoral arrangements of Sanders, it seems that something has changed in the United States. As for Joe Biden, the mere fact that the Democrats are thinking about his nomination says a lot ...

- Experts are still stuck with the forecast that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush will fight for the presidency at the end. The Bush and the Clinton families have dominated the White House for many years. Is there a danger of the presidency of the United States being in a kind of ‘hereditary monarchy’?

- No, this I do not see as a danger. According to Article 22 of the Constitution of the US, the president may be reelected only once. Therefore, the term ‘hereditary monarchy’ does not fit here. But the fact that certain families and their ‘network’ continue to have influence as financial sources becomes more obvious. Talking about Hillary Clinton everyone tends to forget that the most important factor is not the name of Clinton, her mother's maiden name is Rodham. The Rodhams are a powerful dynasty of money, without whose support Bill Clinton would never have become the president. We should distance ourselves from ‘labels’ and consider the deeper structure. I concentrate not on the names, but on the cash flows that certain names are promoting. If we consider the financial channels and analyze the activities of presidents and politicians in this context, there is great concern about US democracy. After all, it was Bill Clinton, the Democrat, with the same well-funded deputies and senators, who deregulated the financial industry and thus contributed significantly to the financial crisis.

- How will they call the two candidates for the US presidency in 2016?

- In the reply to this question, I'll go even further: if Jeb Bush with his extremely liberal policies for American realities, first of all on the migration issue, can sustain the internal race, he will have a good chance of winning the election against Hillary Clinton. Though Wall Street, in this case, will not be deprived of its power, but the oil industry will get  even greater influence.