The election campaign in the United States has taken a course that rarely – or perhaps never – was seen in the past. The two great parties, the Democratic one – founded at the beginnings of the 19th century –- and the Republican –from the mid-19th century – have taken up political positions that leave no way out. On the one hand, "the Party of Lincoln" has been taken by Donald Trump, the speculator from New York, while the elites (the establishment) toyed with evangelicals, conservatives and a mass of frustrated workers who ended up turning the tables.

The Democratic Party was content to present Madame Hillary Clinton as successor and follower of President Barack Obama. The financial power that controls the machinery of the Party of FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) in the best style of the Mexican politics of the "gallo tapado" (surprise element), hoped to run the whole course with their undefeatable candidacy. The bases of the Party rebelled and turned in favour of an old socialist who presented his candidacy for the White House without great expectations.

The ‘old’ Senator Bernie Sanders ran a ‘schizophrenic’ campaign that gave him splendid results. On the one hand, he attacked the friends of Hillary, the owners of Wall Street, accusing them of being the one per cent of the wealthy who want to put an end to the middle class and the country itself. His discourse flared up across the whole of the USA and could not be put out, in spite of the millions invested by the leadership in the shadows of the biggest banks of New York.

On the other hand, though, Sanders did not attack the weakest flank of the "Secretary of State". Her lack of credibility and monotonous messages were not the object of critiques from the ‘leftist’ candidate. This task was taken on by the Republican Party and its candidate Donald Trump. Hillary has a long record from when her husband was the Governor of Arkansas (in the 1980s) and then President of the United States (1990s) and when she gained a seat in the Senate at the beginning of the present century and resigned to become Obama's Secretary of State. A total of thirty scabrous years of politics, full of problems. 

Trump not only brought out the dirty linen, accusing her of promoting the loss of jobs and trade treaties that exported jobs. He also put her at the head of the liberal "hawks" of Washington. He associated her with the wars in the Middle East, the threats against Russia and the siege against China.  Trump has shown that Hillary is the worst candidate for the Presidency of the United States that could have been chosen by the financial elites of the Democratic Party. The only thing that saves her is that Trump is still worse. Since the 1960s (Barry Goldwater) the Republican Party has not had a worse candidate.

Trump has alienated vast sectors of the US electorate. Beginning with Mexican immigrants, blacks, Muslims and women. According to Hillary, the magnate of the casinos would favour the rich with tax reforms and would give them petroleum, mineral and forestry contracts that would destroy the environment. The former first lady alleges that Trump has no political experience in international politics and would represent a ‘danger’ if he were to have the keys to unleash a nuclear war.

The problem that faces the world today is that both are right.  Hillary is advised by those ‘hawks’ who are most willing to destabilize or declare war against any country that refuses to submit. It appears that in her plans, the order of the day is to contain China, ruin Russia and meanwhile, declare the wars needed to subjugate the rest of the planet.

Trump may be less sophisticated but his objectives are very similar. While Wall Street and Hillary play on a global scale, Trump has a vision more tied to the economy of the United States. His enemies are Mexico and China who, in his opinion are playing according to the rules of the Anglo-US financial bank. This discourse goes down very well among the sectors hardest hit and most frustrated by the almost permanent economic recession in the United States.

This analysis, that has not mentioned names, will be discussed in the 15th National Congress of Sociology taking place in the University of Panama in the week of August 22. The organizers have planned a special session dedicated to the United States and the apparent wars without end that both candidates promise their electors. What impact will these policies have on Panama and Latin America?

Panamá, August 18 2016

(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)

- Marco A. Gandásegui, Jr., Professor of Sociology of the Universidad de Panamá and Associate Researcher with the Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos Justo Arosemena (CELA).

www.marcoagandasegui14.blogspot.com

www.salacela.net