The US presidential campaign: of what interest to us?

The first debate between the contenders, the Republican Donald Trump and the Democrat Hillary Clinton, has now been held. Citizens of the Caribbean Community paying attention, however, had little indication from that as to whether this part of the world is deemed by one or the other to have relevance for the future policymaking of the eventual winner.

Prior to that it is true that Donald Trump has brought Mexico into focus, contending that as a beneficiary of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada, the US has paid a price as jobs, receiving lower remuneration than in the US, have been drawn to Mexico rather than to the American homeland. And at his first mention of the issue, Hillary Clinton seemed to seek to block the force of his criticism, by intimating that she too had a certain concern at the de facto effects of NAFTA on the employment prospects of the American worker.

To some extent her attempt to mute his criticism has induced a certain, even though muted, support for Trump’s contention, with some of the force of his remarks being shifted, in terms of public attention, to the issue of Mexican immigration into the United States, rather than the consequence of jobs drifting to Mexico at the expense of the American worker. And in addition, the invitation of Trump to Mexico, whether induced by, or originating in, Mexico, turned out to produce a muted response by the Mexican President, essentially putting paid to American popular concerns.

In effect, that outcome, in terms of popular political response, of Trump’s assumed outrage at the alleged drawing of manufacturing activity and therefore employment from the US, dampened the Democratic response to his allegations. And in our view, it gave a certain propaganda force to his accompanying anti-Mexican thrust, that of having a wall built at the common border of the two countries at Mexico’s expense.

On the wider scene of Latin America and the Caribbean, it would also appear to be the case that in response to the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba undertaken by President Obama, there has been a reduced American policy concern about the probability of negative events occurring in the hemisphere, such as to produce popular concern in the US. And indeed, this is likely to be reinforced by what now appears to be a resolution of the longstanding period of guerilla warfare in Colombia, instigated by active Cuban diplomatic intervention more acceptable in recent times to American policymakers.

The possibility of a Clinton victory suggests a continuing empathy on the part of the American government as indicated in Obama’s diplomatic postures, if only because the President’s policies have reflected a certain continuity, no doubt partly inspired by Bill Clinton’s presidency and Hillary Clinton’s stint as Secretary of State. But in that respect too, there does not seem to be much sentiment towards the hemisphere displayed in Trump’s posture during the period of his campaigning.

Our allusion to Clinton’s experience in the world of diplomacy can, however, be overplayed, to the extent that insufficient attention is paid to Trump’s career as a businessman, and the possibility of his displaying a certain pragmatism characteristic of his long-time trade. And though he appears to have paid, in his statements, little attention to the larger states of Latin America (apart from Mexico where his venture can hardly be said to be successful), this orientation would appear to have an in-built flexibility that his campaigning posture has, up to now, not accommodated.

Caribbean populations will have paid a certain attention to the fact that Trump has only belatedly, and perhaps minimally, paid attention to the Black population of the United States itself. His attempts have appeared to be awkward, perhaps in deference to a belief that the majority of that racial sector is already well committed to the Democratic Party. In that respect, however, our concern will, most likely, have to be focused on the extent to which the Black, and let us also say Hispanic, voters, are persuaded to come out to vote by what they currently see of the current campaign.

Trump, as a businessman, has tried to inject a certain populism into his campaign, recognizing that what is described as the Black vote can have an influence in the election if it feels that the Republican’s present interest is minimal, and therefore future interest, after November, will remain so. But as the election draws nearer, with what appears to be a continuing tightening of the vote between the two candidates, Trump may well be induced to attempt to staunch the possibility of a full Black commitment to Clinton, though it is certainly late in the game.

Given the novelty of Trump’s intervention and performance, there has not been much comment within the Caribbean on the prospects of Mrs Clinton’s presidency. She has come to the contest with recommendations, particularly recently, of increasing force from the President. These are, no doubt, intended to ensure that the Black vote maintains a large part of its commitment to him, and transfers it decisively to her. And Caribbean voting populations in the US might well be persuaded to follow his advice as Trump has continued to insist on a negative attitude to migrants, even though his essential focus has been on Mexico.

Guyanese and other Caribbean diplomats in the United States will surely have been seeking to estimate the odds in favour of one or the other candidate, but also the prospects of a Congress that is elected in November that retains some sense of appreciation or understanding of Caribbean diplomatic objectives towards the country. The rationale for this is, as the diplomats will well know, that in accordance with the American Constitution, the parliamentary institutions play not only a decisive, but a substantially autonomous, part, in foreign policy, as well as domestic, policy-making.

A certain unpredictability in respect of the coming elections make this perhaps more important than the last eight years of relative Obama predictability as well as empathy in respect of Latin American and Caribbean objectives.