The problem is not who will lead US, but whether that will result in confusion, which extends to this country and the whole world.
After it became almost obvious that in November to vie for the American presidency will be Donald trump and Hillary Clinton, experts with a special feeling, try on the desired position to the shape of the applicant-brawler. And most agree that hard downed American institutions will drive trump in a rather narrow corridor of possibilities. And even there the individuality of particular value will not have.
It is possible that so. But here in Britain the institution also firmly shot down. And Prime Minister David Cameron — the person is completely systemic and completely devoid of extravagance. And a month and a half there will be a referendum on leaving the EU. Event at European and even world scale is unusual. Moreover, no one can predict the result.
And maybe the leader of the less banal, less merged with the hateful political class and richer ideas than Cameron, would have looked adequate in this particular situation, and would not be the person that events carry.
By the way, trump has just said that the British “would be better off without the EU.” Don’t know which way will work this recommendation, but one way or another to affect the outcome of the vote she could. After all, the odds are exactly the.
In quiet times in comfortable countries institutions is almost everything. But now that time restless. Such when put forward leaders who know how to lead people. But if in such moments emerge a person’s ordinary or random, then the confusion in the minds only grows.
Leaving aside all other edges, you will agree that in Western countries now obvious crisis of ideas, combined with the crisis of the governing classes.
In the Eastern part of the European Union — in particular, in Hungary, now in Poland, — the crisis has already entered the next phase, giving rise to the national-populist regimes.
In old Europe, under the political clans that used to rule there, off the land, but they are still holding up. But their ability to update the course and to put forward a convincing leaders not obvious neither their people nor themselves.
In America approximately the same. The rivalry between Hillary Clinton, a walking impersonation of the traditional politicians, and Donald trump, all it would be like the opposite and known so far only as the controversial businessman-showman, — the expression of the same public confusion. Both — and the epitome of hateful political past, and the applicant for the freshness and originality — under seventy. Both in the age of Ronald Reagan 36 years ago when he went to his presidency.
Then American situation was externally similar to the current one.
A democratic President, Jimmy Carter, the spiritual and political predecessor of Barack Obama, too, began as the President hopes. A left liberal, a defender of minorities, a supporter of the welfare state and a fighter for human rights and peace in the world, he was not at all pre-sentenced to a shameful defeat while trying to be elected for a second term in 1980.
Obama just drove a long time, and Carter quickly stopped. In the last years of Obama’s reign also fell out of international failures, but they are not perceived in America today as too large and unbearably humiliating. And what happened in the final two-year-old Carter looked in the eyes of his fellow citizens as a pathetic and shameful failure.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the failure of the policy of detente, on which he relied. The death of Pro-American monarchy in Iran and the seizure by Islamic revolutionaries of the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Militant left-wing regimes, boldly went on the offensive in Central America.
It is still superimposed and the growing irritation that does not when Carter began economic stagnation and an unprecedented American standards, rampant inflation.
Luggage like Jimmy Carter, person indecisive, timid, peace-loving and generally established for other times, there was nothing left, as to give the carrier opposite qualities. The Republican Reagan came to power as a champion of the building and the use of military force, reducing state interference in the economy, stifling inflation and other conservative virtues.
Speak about the stylistic similarities trump with Reagan. But, unlike trump, which (in words) at the same time acts as an isolationist and as imperialist, as “dove” and “hawk, Reagan, first, saying things to each other is not particularly contradicted. Secondly, he publicly defended the same views for many years. And thirdly, he promoted them, being wholly a man of the system and one of the prominent figures of the American establishment. Even in his own Republican party, he was considered pretty extreme, but until then molested her the presidential nomination, and he had a real chance, and for many years served as the Governor of California, a huge state.
When these ideas come, one of the main parties was already standing by the right person. Talking about good form, which was then the American political class. But even more, that American society itself was in those years, ready for change and wanted them.
Therefore, the shift would have occurred without Reagan. The turn to power politics had already begun under Carter, for all his anxieties and fears. And he also for more than a year before losing the presidential election put at the head of the Federal reserve system of the legendary Paul Volcker, which the iron hand crushed the inflation, going for this temporary decline in production and rise in the unemployment rate. His policy has brought convincing results only a few years later, and they shook Reagan, who, of course, ideas Volcker was picked up and supported. But in its main features the same policy would be carried out and when another President.
This is the key difference with what we have today. In contrast to the current, the then American society knew better what he wants, and the ruling class felt far more confident and much clearer I realized that to offer to its people.
Today’s America doesn’t look weak, but is afraid to use force. Tired of political correctness, but does not know how to replace it. Sees that society is stratified on successful minority and living on benefits most, but no idea how to deal with it. Wants to hold the world championship, but feels that the Chinese system, for all its difficulties, it is hardly possible to predict the imminent “discarding in the dustbin of history,” as Reagan once said about Marxism-Leninism (meaning this system of Soviet socialism).
This confusion in the minds and breeds American election fight in 2016, with her strange plots and weird parties.
When ideas are embraced by the masses, and are the leaders for whom these masses are, and if state institutions are good, they help this movement. And the confusion gives rise only throwing. Now — the election-verbal, and then, perhaps, that of the state-political.
