Hillary Clinton: She made it!

Following some moments of serious dissension in the Democratic ranks at their Philadelphia convention, between the supporters of Hillary Clinton and the recalcitrant ones of Bernie Sanders, the former made the history books, on Tuesday, as the first woman to be nominated president by a major political party. It has been a long, and often fractious, route for an ambitious woman, whose leadership was recognized even by her childhood schoolmates; and who bore the brunt, and often ridicule, by her critics. She now clearly has the last laugh.

Coming on the heels of a dynamic speech,Monday evening, by First Lady Michelle Obama, where she clearly and unequivocally identified Clinton as the one that would be able to secure the future for her daughters, and that the world would be safer for them because of her efforts at shattering gender boundaries, she also assured viewers, that these efforts, brought her, another Chicago born woman, securely into the public arena. That speech full of Obama’s “guts n’ glory” style, cemented the party ideals of unity that the Democrats have espoused; while Republican nominee, Donald Trump has done the opposite.

Obama’s ringing endorsement of the former secretary of state, New York Senator, and American first lady, stood in direct contrast to the earnest pleas of Bernie Sanders, whose supporters booed some Clinton advocates, like U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra, whose support she received, but whose district favored Sanders. The father of the “political revolution” practically begged, chided and warned of the dangers of a Trump win to gain their support.

While no one ever said Democracy was a neat enterprise, the efforts this week by the Democratic National Committee, with the graceful ouster of former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, caught in an email outing to derail Sanders, reminded viewers of that fact. While his supporters voiced their opposition to the TCP, millionaire bankers, bandits and bullies, they gave proof to that adage. But, in the end it seemed that the inevitable became, well the inevitable, as Clinton got both the votes from South Dakota, and Sander’s own home state Vermont that made her victory hit the history books.

“Breaking the barriers to opportunity” was the imprimatur given by Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski, but it seemed as if the day was clearly carried by the doggedness that is the hallmark of Clinton as she now faces her opponent, whose platform of division has earned him both the enmity of those of his own party, and much of the public where more 40 percent disapprove of him.

Now, the game is on, and Clinton will have to use her whip smart brain, and military like stratagem, to return to the White House, this time as the nation’s first female chief executive.

Hillary steps into Philadelphia convention: what she faces

When Hillary Clinton steps onto the stage at Philadelphia's Pennsylvania Convention Center n Monday, the presumptive Democratic candidate, for president of the United States, breaks not only the largest old boys club in the country, but brings with it a mass of emotions, feelings, and expectations, not all of them from well wishers. It has been said that this is the first presidential election where both candidates lead with highly unfavorable stats, with most going to the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll said that both Clinton and Trump have high unfavorability ratings, especially among white men, with she showing a 43-55 favorable/unfavorable divide. In a characteristic, some might say ironic twist, Clinton, or in the nomenclature of celebrity culture -- Hillary -- has taken her history of success, along with some serious blunders (like the private email server) and gone beyond them to show what she has always had: a dogged determination to create a stronger and more progressive profile to American politics and life, for all Americans.

The issues that confront her are uneviable: dogged and established police brutality against African Americans, an economy that slowly has struggled to regain a sense of balance, despite the addition of 14.8 million jobs added, in the aftermath of the Great Recession. This crisis, created in the U.S. by unregulated, and often draconian financial traders, forces the hand of reformers to hold tight the reins of regulation; also an offshore role for the 21st century, where America has transgressed that of the “greatest generation” and looks at a vastly different world, than post World War II yielded. The nation also faces a domestic society that has undergone dramatic recognition of the civil rights of gay men and women, with the right to marry, and adopt children, as desired, but whose national rights agenda still retains problematic.

As she looks East she may not be able to see Russia, but  if elected, she will face a determined Vladimir Putin who may want to test her mettle. Hovering in the background is the legacy of Afghanistan and Iraq - wars that have drained the country’s coffers, as well as much of the old respect, and where a conundrum remains, along with the Taliban.

Terrorism -- and its redolent bloodbath -- will not take a backseat, and leadership on that issue, before another target  has been spotted will be crucial, for all Americans. The coda to terrorism abroad are domestic ISIS supporters, as well as those with assault rifles determined to carry out a warped agenda of hate and criminality.

All these, and more, face Hillary Clinton as she steps into the glare of Klieg lights in that historic place, the birthplace of the Constitution, the home of luminaries, such as Benjamin Franklin, (and once the nation’s capital) - making  it all the more auspicious for a new look, a different paradigm, for the 21st century, as the November election looms ahead.

Brexit: Can it happen in the U.S.?

Last week’s news about Britain exiting the European Union sent shockwaves of disbelief across the continent and in the U.S. was greeted with a certain disbelief, and wonder. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, quickly linked it to his own nativist assumptions about taking his own nation back. While it certainly was not an entire surprise that he did so, placards held aloft saying “Bring Britain Back,” seemed to ally his remarks with his beliefs, right down to the sentiment expressed on his baseball cap: “Make America Great Again.”. Aside from making him look like a somewhat.addled middle-school coach, his remarks gave him some street cred in certain parts of Europe.

Immigration does seem to be part of the works, as the liberal polices, for some immigrant, especially those from the Middle East have been seen as a problem by some in Britain; albeit culturally for those nostalgic for a whiter and more Christian nation. They also seem redolent of Issues that have surfaced when Trump supporters have rallied, and also pushed, often literally, as they encounter people of color at counter rallies. But, are these analogies as succinct, or even as distinct, as Trump would have us believe?

A closer look at the reasons why the vote - close call in hand - came about reveals a more complex picture. One strong aspect of the vote was demographic with younger people favoring to remain, while older citizens wanted to leave. Using the statistics from Lord Ashcroft's polls puts things into sharper perspective.

“The older the voters, the more likely they were to have voted to leave the EU. Nearly three quarters (73%) of 18 to 24 year-olds voted to remain, falling to under two thirds (62%) among 25-34s. A majority of those aged over 45 voted to leave, rising to 60% of those aged 65 or over. Most people with children aged ten or under voted to remain; most of those with children aged 11 or older voted to leave,” according to Ashcroft’s poll.

Age was a factor but also a close second was education, and those with a university degree, or higher voted to remain, 54 percent with the degree, and 64 percent of those with advanced degrees chose to remain, while “Among those whose formal education ended at secondary school or earlier, a large majority voted to leave.”

The vote to stay showed not only a demographic split, but one based on education and attitudes towards such things as multiculturalism, feminism, the Green Movement, globalization and immigration. But, the core factor seems to be that those decisions should be made in Britain, not Brussels.

Delving even deeper we see those who felt that being more British was more important than being English, a question of identity that cemented the age gap, versus the bannered notes of immigration, as the sole reason often given in the U.S. media.

Trump’s remarks, made after opening a golf course in Scotland, now don’t seem quite so cut and dried. What is present is an attitude developed through education, age, and a greater awareness of what it means to be a nation state in the 21st century; themes which may be echoed in the United States, as it bears down on the upcoming presidential election.

Focusing on some of the themes, I interviewed a young Briton, now in the U.S. to study, George Matthews, to gage his reaction with those of some of his contemporaries who felt that older Britons, had sold them out, with their vote to leave.. Speaking at length, he said: “The breakdown of the vote by age has shown very clearly that the older you are, the more likely you were to vote to leave. Obviously the older you are, the less time you will have to live with the decision to leave and the ramifications; however I'm not sure if it is fair to say that the older voters have necessarily sold out younger people's future. I say that, not because I think Brexit won't have a huge impact on younger people (quite the opposite - I think it will have an enormous impact for decades to come) but that I think it's going to have a much bigger impact on older voters than they realised.”

One area of concentration was economics with many of those who voted to stay concerned the economic risks posed by a decision to leave the EU. The poll discussed monetary policy and reaction and its effect on the population and noted: “For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).”

With that consideration in mind Matthews also noted that,”We have an ageing population in the UK, with a declining fertility rate and rising longevity, and this is increasingly putting a strain on public spending. Around 55% of welfare spending (£114bn in 2014/15) is currently paid to pensioners, with the state pension by far the largest element, and this is forecast to increase around 2.5% a year for the next five years.”

Continuing in that vein, he detailed that “Growing numbers of elderly people will also have an impact on the NHS (National Health Service) and social care expenditure. The prevalence of long-term health conditions increases with age, and according to a 2010 estimate made by the Department of Health, such conditions account for 70% of total health and social care spending in England. In addition, the decrease in the working population relative to the number of pensioners will result in further fiscal pressure. A lower proportion of people in work means lower tax revenues and, in all likelihood, higher public expenditure. Any attempt to bolster lower tax revenues would quite possibly involve the resurrection of the idea of a Mansion Tax (a proposed, but as yet unimplemented, annual tax on high value properties) and/or an increase in Council Tax (the system of local taxation used in the UK) particularly on higher value properties, which would most likely hit older people more, because property prices have risen significantly in the past few decades, particularly in London and the south east.”

Returning to the role of immigration, and keeping the UK recognisably British, was important for some, so I asked him if he saw this as more of a preoccupation by those over 50, or is it also a concern for UK youth?  Reflectively, he answered, “Being a millennial, I watched the immediate reaction to the Leave vote unfold on Facebook as well as on the news. Of course, the reactions I was seeing on Facebook is a rather polarised view of the UK youth, however the overwhelming majority of my Facebook friends were heartbroken by the result. Their reactions were not due to economic reasons, but due to immigration, most of whom either have friends in the UK who would not be able to be here but for the free movement of people inherent in the EU structure, or who have family and friends who live and, or have lived in the EU, or who themselves have spent time living or working in other EU countries.”

If this view from abroad is applied loosely - even an extension to the U.S. then there is a distinct disadvantage for taking the more nativist strain that Trump has promoted.

Continuing, he noted that “The Leave campaign used immigration probably as the key issue and which, in my opinion, probably was the main factor which swayed people to vote leave. There are proper economic arguments for Leaving - such as the amount of money which gets spent on administration/bureaucracy (which is about 6% of what is collected by the EU) (and issues which rise from ceding some sovereignty to the institutions of the EU - however in my opinion these were not dealt with properly by the Leave campaign. What it really boiled down to was the Leave campaign saying, somewhat arrogantly I thought, that the UK could leave the EU and just rejoin the single market without having to sign up to free movement of people. If you look at Norway, for example, they are a member of the single market without being members of the EU. However, they pay around 94% of what they would pay if they were full members AND have had to sign up for free movement of people. In addition, since the conclusion of the referendum, the EU has openly said that single market access requires full free movement I believe that it was arrogant of the Leave campaign to ever suggest that we could ever leave the EU and then simply rejoin on our own terms, but was a "nice idea" for a prospective voter who simply wanted to leave the EU to curb immigration, be them younger or older.”

Matthews cautioned, by saying,  “I am not saying that I think all voters who voted to leave did so with immigration as the number one issue in mind, indeed I know two younger voters who did so because they wanted the UK Parliament to regain full sovereignty and power over lawmaking since the perceived erosion of Parliament's power which started with the Factortame litigation.” But, “Even before issues of economic stability and access to the European Single Market are considered, I would say that the restrictions on immigration which the Leave campaign heavily relied upon will under up with the older generation having shot themselves in the foot.”

The complexity in Britain rules out a zero sum game concept, that is tempting for the media, but lacks the social and economic complexity that lies behind the move.

In the U.S. with the upcoming election, the pendulum is stuck between those progressives who see things such as LGBT rights, continued gains for women in top jobs, and a view towards stemming the tide of armed violence, and gun laws as a contest between red and blue states, but also a generational divide between Millennials and their own ageing progenitors, which has echoes of religious fundamentalism. But, there is no referendum pending, having had our CIvil War. Yet, what the pundits and polls say about the November elections might, for some, be redolent of Britain's exit from the EU.

While some pundits have seen this as a preview of what Trump’s policies might look like and an attempt by the other presumptive candidate, Democrat Hillary Clinton linking him to all that is bad for the country, that could be an effect, but could it also be something that is already being done?

Others point out that the analogy is not helpful due to Britain being a lot whiter resulting in a less diverse electorate than the U.S. where more than 60 percent of the voters in November are expected to be non-white,and who also view Trump with great disdain.

Add to the mix Britain's strict finance laws then the currency of the campaigns are also not comparable with Clinton spending scads, (to the point of earmarking $20 million in swing state ads) while Trump has been parsimonious.

There are those, presumably not on the take with Trump who have proclaimed a new allegiance based on Brexit, who call it Trexit, and are now saying: “A majority of Brits apparently heard the same thing. Their retreat isn't only away from the European Union and, inferentially, from globalization, concubine of the New World Order. It is rather a turning back toward home, the idea as well as the place. Home is who we are, the values we share, the traditions we practice and the one flag to which we all pledge allegiance.”

If this is seen at all, as an analogy with the November presidential elections,  it may be  worthwhile to look across the pond and see it clearly, warts and all, as Matthews points out. If not the Trump analogist may be in danger of crossing through the looking glass into a land unrecognizable, unless to its own creator..