Can he really make it to the White House and build them?
By Florence Brock
ROME – American journalist and analyst Andrew Spannau, active both in Italy and internationally, presented his new book entitled:” Why Trump is going to win: Electoral revolt and the future of America” at the Foreign Press Association yesterday.
Moderated by Roberto Montoya, General Secretary at the Foreign Press Association, the book panel also included Professor Lucio Martino, expert for Transatlantic Relations at the Military Center for Strategic Studies at John Cabot University in Rome and Professor Germano Dottori, cultivator of strategic studies at Luiss-Guido Carli in Rome and press advisor of Limes – Italian geopolitical magazine.
Professor Martino commences his discourse by giving the audience an update on the current electoral party nomination standings for the respective upcoming national conventions scheduled later this month: the GOP or Republican convention is set for July 18th-21st and the Democratic Convention for July 25th-28th.
The expert points out: “Trumps numbers are more significant than Clinton’s. Of the 2511 delegates she is acquired for her party’s nomination, over 2200 had already pledged, so she really has not swung many votes her way. For that matter, Sanders did not stand much of a chance as the outsider. As Republicans have no pledged or super delegates, Trump’s 1541 delegates hold a different meaning: either he’s the fruit of an able Republican party or there’s a current civil war currently underway within the party.” Either way, the polls show these are the two candidates in the final race for the White House this coming November.
As the tension mounts in the USA and in the world for the next super power president, strategists and intellectuals in Europe are particularly concerned with the incoming president’s foreign policy. Dottori refers to an interesting quote from Spannaus’ book that has an uncanny way of highlighting how Trump criticizes Obama for over intervening in world affairs while Clinton accuses the president of just the contrary.
“Trump has a very pragmatic approach, typical of business men,”says Spannau. Although the author admits the Republican magnate probably has no foreign policy objectives, he does emphasize that Trump is a businessman and that he plans on facing foreign matters by making deals with other heads of state like Putin, creating a peaceful world environment.
The Italian strategists equally envision the magnate in his future position as Commander-in-Chief as a leader whose tendency is to move towards conversion of American interests in foreign politics.
Professor Dottori comes out openly stating that the idea of Clinton in the oval office frightens him while Trump presence does not at all. “There would be a great shift towards diplomacy with Trump, not with Clinton,” he declares.
The entire panel agrees: the soon-to-be Republican candidate has a practical approach to politics and his views are, overall, quite uncommon for a representative of the right wing. Republicans are notoriously, conservative, pro- free market, and avid churchgoers whereas Trump is not very conservative, he isanti-TPP, and he is not very religious.
Trump also breaks through the American way of speaking; he infringes verbal barriers.Polls show this appears successful. Every time he seems to be in a tight spot over something he is said, he systematically reinforces his position and popularity.
Although the conversation largely heralds Trump’s peacefully oriented politics as the future 47th President of the USA, a Mexican correspondent in the audience brings panelists and the crowd back to sound reality with a simple yet burning question:” I have heard no mention about Trump’s racist rhetoric”.
The author quickly retorts that it is essential to investigate the causes behind such speech and analyze them for their potential hazard if indeed Trump is to become the next Executive Chief. He and the other panel membersclearly find Trump more innocuous than Clinton’s Wilsonian ways.
While it is never a good idea to stay on the surface of things, he misses the point. How can you make recourse, looking beyond his words at the causes when this man could become the next leader of one of the most influential nations in the world? As the state isa formal representative, the president of the USA cannot fairly represent a multi-ethnic country with a mouthful of insults directed at minorities and preposterous projects intended to further separate people.
How long could a country hold out tolerating such harsh racist language and actions that insults minorities and goes in the opposite direction of the very democracy the country was built on? Doesn’t a figure of that magnitude have a responsibility for his words, first and foremost? Americans as a nation and others as world stakeholders are obliged to evaluate his speech, giving value to his words. Once we do, only then can we examine what is behind them.