Clinton could lose even as she wins
If her victory does not produce big Democratic gains in Congress, Republicans will feel emboldened to defy her.
It’s not enough to win the election. You also have to win the interpretation. That’s where your mandate comes from. What kind of mandate will Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton get if she wins? Much depends on her margin of victory. And her coattails.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has indicated that he does not intend to concede, even if Republican leaders try to concede for him. Trump is already claiming the election is rigged. If he loses narrowly he will likely insist the election was stolen. Asked in the final debate Wednesday night whether he would accept the election result if he loses, Trump’s response was: “I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense.” Don’t expect Trump to fade away quietly. He’s making plans to start Trump TV in order to give himself a platform from which he can harass President Clinton. A close election will be interpreted to mean that Clinton won only because she is not Trump. Trump’s supporters will rally behind him and protest Clinton’s victory up to—and beyond—her inauguration in January. They will denounce her as an illegitimate President. They will pressure Republicans in Congress to block everything she tries to do. If her victory does not produce big Democratic gains in Congress, Republicans will feel emboldened to defy her. A narrow victory means endless gridlock.
A landslide Clinton victory may be tough. As a Democrat who was part of the Obama administration, she is the candidate of the status quo. The fact that Clinton would be the first woman elected President does not appear to be generating much excitement, especially among younger women.
But there’s a lot of discontent in the country and it’s not confined to Trump enthusiasts. All this year, around 70% of Americans told the Gallup poll they are not satisfied with the way things are going in the United States. If Republicans had nominated a more broadly acceptable candidate—like Ohio Governor John Kasich or Senator Marco Rubio of Florida—there is a good chance Clinton would be losing.
One striking feature of this presidential campaign is the huge education gap. White non-college-educated voters are going two-to-one for Trump, 62% to 31%, according to the ABC News-Wash- ington Post poll. College graduates favour Clinton by more than 20 points, 55 to 34%. For the first time in more than 50 years, whites with a college degree are voting Democratic, 51 to 38%.
To educated voters, Trump represents know-nothing politics. His supporters reject climate change as a hoax. They are suspicious of foreigners and immigrants. They are fearful of a globalized economy. They harbour racial resentment.
“This election will determine,” Trump told a rally in Florida, “whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system.”
A lot of Americans resent being governed by educated experts and professionals like Clinton and Obama. Resentment of the educated elite has always been a deep strain in American populism.
It emerged in 2008, when Obama spoke disdainfully about economically distressed small-town Americans who “cling to guns and religion.” It broke out this year when Hillary Clinton denounced “half of Trump supporters” as a “basket of deplorables...racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.” To many less well-educated Americans, comments like those are blatant snobbery.
Resentment of the educated elite also drives hatred of the press. Journalists, especially national journalists, are usually well educated and have a sophisticated world view. A conservative editor explained to the New York Times that mainstream journalists are “interested in every kind of diversity except the kind that would challenge their own prejudices,” including “bigotry against conservative religion, bigotry against rural folks and bigotry against working- class and poor white people.”
Educated Americans will interpret a big Clinton victory as an endorsement of their “enlightened” values. For less well-educated whites, it will confirm their sense of isolation and resentment.
Each of the last four Presidents—George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama—promised to bring the country together. They all failed. There is little prospect that either Clinton or Trump, two of the most divisive figures in US politics, can heal the divide. Two Americas, two interpretations. And no widely accepted mandate. The controversy surrounding the release of Karan Johar’s Ae Dil Hai Mushkil seems to have come as a shot in the arm for a redundant outfit like the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena ( MNS), which is seeking to accrue political capital out of the issue to make itself relevant. The MNS had been rejected outright by the state’s people, whom it claims to represent, while threatening theatre owners with dire consequences if they dared to screen the film, which, among others, also stars a Pakistani actor, Fawad Khan. While Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has assured the producers that all steps to ensure the smooth release of the movie would be executed, the impression that is “filming by” is that the BJP is hesitant to act against Raj Thackeray, due to its strained relationship with the Shiv Sena and its chief Uddhav Thackeray.
The controversy has been fuelled by electronic channels, some of whom have been demanding that no movie featuring Pakistani artistes should be shown in India, following the terrorist attack in Uri, in which nearly 20 brave Indian soldiers were killed. Undoubtedly, there is a strong emotive dimension to the ongoing script and has therefore stirred up a kind of frenzy in varied circles. The issue has also been picked up by vigilante groups, who have taken it upon themselves to go ahead with the lynch mob mentality. The initial demand was that all Pakistani artistes working on Indian soil should be made to condemn the Uri attack or at least heinous acts of terrorism. A few of them complied, but Fawad Khan stood his ground and maintained a total silence on the issue, possibly fearing reprisals for his family back home.
This was sufficient fodder for groups and political parties that feed on passion. Their spokespersons started giving arguments in TV studios that the film’s release would amount to insulting our brave soldiers. In the process, filmmaker Karan Johar acquired anti hero shades, whose defence regarding the film cut no ice with several TV anchors and many others who had made up their mind that if Ae Dil Hai Mushkil hit the silver screen, it would be sheer blasphemy. What, however, is most disturbing is that questions began to be raised regarding the patriotism of the producers as well as those who were associated with the venture. The MNS, as always, took the lead in Mumbai and its leaders seemed determined to obstruct the release in order to hit the headlines, particularly after its candidates secured only 4% of the total votes cast in the last Assembly elections.
In a democracy, everyone is entitled to one’s views, but for those indulging in vigilantism, there is only one opinion on any matter, their own. Therefore, it is important that the government should not allow self styled deshbhakts to infringe the rule of law and create disruption on the streets which could endanger human lives. While many amongst those who are demanding the film to be banned may have their mind set, they cannot be permitted to violate the established guidelines of the government. Any person who endangers public order must be dealt with strictly as per law and if the need be, put away or given a stern warning.
There is no need for any Indian to prove his or her patriotism and any attempt to brand as traitors all those who do not share the view point of the vigilante groups must be thwarted. The State and the government must assert its supremacy and thus come down heavily on bullies, whether in Kashmir (Hurriyat) or for that matter in any part of the country. The MNS has over a period of time earned notoriety for indulging in acts of violence against soft targets. The poor Eastern UP and Bihari residents of Mumbai were picked on for supposedly taking over the jobs of Maharashtrians. Now resisting the release would afford enough publicity to the group to keep it politically alive.
This is where Devendra Fadnavis missed out on a God sent opportunity to fix the MNS for good and redeem himself in the eyes of his critics who have accused him of being a Chief Minister who does not have control over his own government. Instead he invited Raj Thackeray to a meeting with the film fraternity on Saturday and allowed him to dictate the terms. Thackeray subsequently boasted that the film would be released after the producers pay Rs 5 crore to a welfare fund for the jawans. The “wilful extortion” took place in the presence of the CM, who should not have allowed the MNS to have the last word on the matter. The signal that has gone out is that Raj Thackeray has government patronage and should be feared by the film industry.
Mumbai was always regarded as the most cosmopolitan of Indian cities and its record of accepting and accommodating people from all over the country has been blemished over the past few years by the likes of MNS. Every citizen must be made aware that while there are no curbs on expressing views, there would be zero tolerance for lynch mob thinking. The government, at any cost, cannot allow a breakdown of law and order. Between us.