Hillary or Trump, next president will face dictators on their own terms

As the US general election gears up following the party conventions, the two polarizing candidates are delineating diametrically opposing visions of not just America, but the world at large.

Yet in fact, regardless of the rhetoric between now and January 20, the incoming 45th US president will be faced with a fundamentally altered global environment characterized by a combination of strengthened autocratic regimes and seemingly gridlocked and ineffectual democratic allies - on top of what will probably remain a deeply divided society right here at home.

That means that Trump or Hillary will be facing such strongmen as Putin, Xi, and Erdogan largely on their own terms, with little pretense that anything can be done in the standard geopolitical ways to pressure them to loosen or moderate their regimes or even block the spread of their illiberal influences regionally.

After a quarter-century of US military and economic hegemony since the end of the Cold War, Washington can no longer count on military primacy in eastern (possibly even central) Europe, nor on economic primacy in east and southeast Asia. Should the Russo-Chinese strategic partnership blossom into a full-fledged alliance, it would put enormous pressure on the lesser powers of the Eurasian supercontinent to fall in line at least partly with Moscow and Beijing, which in the contemporary ideological and geopolitical environment automatically means a loss for Washington.

The loss would be far worse if traditional US allies in Europe and Asia become so skeptical of American commitment to defending and promoting liberal democracy and free markets that they increasingly strike out on their own to deal with the resurgent dictatorships, whose threats feel ever more immediate to them even as American assurances feel ever more distant.

That being said, there's bound to be quite a difference in the optics of a Clinton versus a Trump response to this unprecedented challenge to US influence on both the Atlantic and Pacific flanks of Eurasia. Whereas the latter will seek to cut deals as quickly as possible - largely on the dictators' terms - to prioritize stability and mutual non-aggression even at the expense of liberal evangelism, the former will seek to shore up the buffers of global democratic liberalism (even seizing chances to expand them) even if it heightens tensions with autocrats.

In either case, however, the underlying reality will be unmistakable, as it already is: active, tangible US power and freedom of action are increasingly constricted across both great oceans, and Washington is bound to find itself, sooner or later, dealing with opposing or even hostile political systems with no illusions left that they can be brought (or brought back) to its liberal consensus anytime soon.

While Trump is gambling that America can "win" for its own security by preemptively conceding those battles which are too difficult and refocusing on a few common issues shared by democracies and dictatorships alike, Hillary hopes that a renewed resolve can buy enough time for both the country and its allies to reinvigorate their domestic progressive institutions to such a degree that the exceptional "American way" will become attractive again, even to dictatorships.

In fact, some combination of both approaches is most likely to yield the best results.

Trump and his supporters should be under no illusions that US disengagement from the world is even possible, let alone desirable; paradoxically, the aim of any partial pullbacks of military or economic efforts should be to increase overall US influence (by highlighting its necessity), not diminish it.

Likewise, Hillary and her camp must realize that having the best ideas and ideals isn't a license to keep underachieving in terms of actual results; not only must America choose its battles more selectively than ever, but it must engage in them with an ever greater attention to what its own popularly mandated priorities actually are (to avoid over-committing and thereby under-delivering).

America can easily retain its global leadership role and in fact do a much better job at it. The silver lining of the present crisis is that the world's only superpower - openly acknowledged by both Russia and China as such, even taking into account their own recent resurgences - must now think and act smarter, not harder. Far from a sign of weakness, to face dictators on their own terms will prove America's exceptional gift - and the dictators themselves will recognize it.

Cruz sticks to his guns, but it's not 1976

Ted Cruz was Ted Cruz again last night...the firebrand Lone Star Senator again proved that his hallmark is defiance in the face of unpopularity.

This will go down well for those who still value the purity of principle - conservative principle - above everything else. Say what you want about Cruz - you can't deny the man's stubborn integrity and independence.

Problem is, this isn't 1976. Cruz and like-minded movement conservatives are taking a huge gamble: a bet that when the smoke clears from the Trump train wreck, that they'll be back in vogue with the angry GOP base.

That could turn out to be wishful thinking - even if the Trump train does become said train wreck between now and November.

The world has changed beyond recognition since Ronald Reagan took the reins of the contemporary conservative movement in his inspiring performance at the RNC in 1976. Yet like Jay Gatsby, much of the movement essentially thinks that the party's only problem is that it's not trying hard enough to repeat the past.

Cruz has now become their point man - and their ideological mooring is radio host Mark Levin, whose growing fan base among all age groups suggests that this strain of dissent is hardly a fringe viewpoint.

Trump himself will eventually take all this in stride, if he isn't already. He seems more interested in nabbing center-leaning independents and even poaching anti-establishmentarian leftists from Bernie Sanders than in securing the purist segment of the base.

That's probably because he can reasonably count on at least 70-80 percent support from them anyway at the ballot box: the lack of endorsement from the likes of Cruz and Levin doesn't mean in the least that they won't loyally close ranks behind the Republican ticket when it actually counts. It's as if he can take them for granted in much the same way establishment Democrats like Hillary have taken the black vote for granted for years.

So depending on how smart you think Trump is - and this blogger for one thinks he's much smarter than the rest of us - the whole Cruz drama last night may have been an elaborate setup. He may well have figured that Cruz is actually more useful to his cause by remaining fiercely autonomous - and drawing much criticism upon himself in the process - than if he seemed to compromise for once in his life.

Trump doesn't want to give the impression that conservatives automatically must water down their ideals and expectations to help put him in office. He needs the movement and that part of the GOP electorate to eventually converge on Mike Pence's pragmatic take right before the decisive Indiana primary on May 3: Cruz is better, yes, but go with your gut.

That's what Cruz himself effectively said last night - and he's caught hell for it.

Which gives Trump the opportunity, somewhere down the line, to play the peacemaker/unifier role by cutting "Lyin' Ted" some slack - and grudgingly endearing himself to conservatives who otherwise can't stand for him, or even stand him.

Good economy won't hurt Trump (or help Hillary)

The conventional wisdom that Donald Trump needs a bad economy to win the presidency - i.e. that a good US economy between now and November will hurt him - is likely to be the latest in a long line of common establishmentarian assumptions that will be rendered invalid in this election. And ultimately, probably the most important.

The fact of the matter is, just look at the messenger himself: Donald Trump, a flamboyantly wealthy business mogul, isn't exactly the kind of guy you'd think would be complaining about a rotten economy. That tells you something: this isn't about the absolute level of prosperity or poverty in America, but 1) the direction that things are going, 2) the structural obstacles that have become entrenched in preventing a much higher level of general well-being for the populace as a whole, and probably most importantly, 3) the distortions that even our prosperity is causing in society and culture.

Make no mistake: the American dream is still alive and arguably quite well. If you take a glass-half-full view of the Millennial generation, it's quite remarkable that half still believe in it - their actual experiences since the Great Recession would easily lend to a gloomier outlook. Tellingly, even those who don't believe in it appear as likely to be skeptical of its moral and spiritual value as opposed to just plain cynical that it's actually achievable. If you take a more holistic view, an unmistakable picture emerges: whilst older Americans are more confident about the economy and material well-being, they're the ones most upset about the country's social and cultural milieu; by contrast, younger Americans are less gung-ho about their temporal welfare but resoundingly more positive about how the country's faring and where it's heading overall (undeniable exceptions notwithstanding).

That means that 2016 already exhibits a different dynamic between economics and politics than previous elections. Not too long ago, it was still possible to consider politics as effectively a function of economics; today it's becoming just as valid to consider economics a function of politics.

That's because the mythic "capitalist free market" has long ceased to exist in any meaningful form, true to its ideologically pure pedigree. But even more to the point, it's become obvious that even if the material benefits of globalization have outweighed its material costs, this strictly materialistic criterion for assessment is no longer credible.

If you were to sum up in just one word not just America's but the general global backlash against the international financial-corporate cartel-elite, it's alienation.

Stunningly, this quintessentially Marxist term is hard to dismiss in a world that has been utterly dominated by the transnational capitalist ruling class for a generation; and to the extent that they and their spokesmen and apologists are now ignoring this reality, they are effectively digging their political graves.

By alienation, in today's postmodern, post-industrial context, we fundamentally refer to the distance and aloofness of the global economy's modes of wealth transfer and production from its actual rank and file of not just workers - whether blue-collar or white-collar - but especially consumers too; it's the effective reduction of Joe Sixpack to just one more class of economic commodity not even so much for his muscle and toil, but for his consumption of what the powers-that-be choose to feed him with ever more detached or remote processes which don't require his participation.

Remarkably, this is a very old concept (and reality) which in the age of internet-driven globalization has acquired a particularly virtualized and impersonal - to the point of being faceless or roboticized - character. It's the ultimate triumph of "capital" over "labor": the steady abolition of the latter by the former, whereby the latter is rendered so superfluous and expendable by the former that it's effectively transformed from worker to dependent. Or, as "capital" progresses towards its final irrevocable victory, "labor" becomes "torpor", if not "stupor."

Behind the subpar economic numbers in the latter phases of the Obama recovery, it's this deeper metamorphosis of the societal condition that's arousing the populist backlash of Mr. Trump. A "good" economy is no longer to be judged merely by its production and consumption stats, but also by its production and consumption ethic. It's the global financial-corporatist ethic of maximizing the black bottom line that's allowed the economy to look really "good" regardless of its consequent structural socioeconomic inequities and extreme concentrations of real power and influence in very few hands, which makes a complete mockery of the vaunted democratic process.

And that's what this whole rebellion against the Republican - and Democratic - establishment is all about.

Trump is asking for our vote, not our blessing

I write this because I'm somewhat disturbed that there are still conscientious Christians out there who won't vote for Donald Trump even though they know Hillary Clinton is a far less palatable choice for their values and beliefs.

My simple message is this: Trump is asking for your vote, not your blessing.

Our president is not our priest or pastor: the role of the office is principally temporal and of the material order, with spirituality a guiding light, for sure, but not the overriding concern that dictates what can or should be done down to the minutiae of each decision or act.

In an ideal world - definitely not the sin-tainted one on this side of the last judgment - we won't have to bother with characters like Trump because there won't be any dangers or challenges that require the style and flexibility of leadership that more often than not comes in a less-than-exemplary moral package.

Consider our military. We wouldn't even need one if we had no enemies with the capability and/or intent to harm us. But the fact is there are, and while it's always a worthy cause to negotiate for lasting peace where possible, in the meantime we need plenty of head-bashers and a**-kickers. You have to be alive to even have the chance to do a deal; and the stronger your physical position vis-à-vis your adversary, ironically the more you can achieve without resorting to additional violence.

We don't expect our troops - especially our best men and women who bear the brunt of the fighting - to be such nice guys and gals, do we? I sure hope not!

And ultimately that's what the presidency is: commander-in-chief. As St. Paul would say, there's a reason that human authority is symbolized by a sword - of course it so happens that the one wielding it is less than likely to be a great example of loving your enemy, but in a world full of sin it's a compromise that God is perfectly willing to allow.

We want a commander-in-chief who can actually do very difficult things and get those under him to actually do difficult things, too. What we don't want is a flabby moralist who, under the guise of being "enlightened" and "open-minded", is just another pansy terrified of political incorrectness and bad poll numbers.

So in conclusion, my fellow Christians still reserved about or downright hostile to Trump: just ask yourself what your vote actually means - what the presidency itself actually is. In the end, if you're crystal-clear about what it is you're actually granting to the candidate you vote for - and what you're not - your conscience shouldn't bother you at all at night.