Unless we wake up to an overturn, Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. In the final days of a campaign with little content, cheap shots and anything but stirring electoral debates, Donald Trump remains behind her in the polls, is – if at all possible – turning up the volume of the shouting match, and threatens to violate the 240-year basis of democracy in America by announcing that he might not acknowledge any winner other than himself.
On November 9, after the election of the new President, American democracy will have a number of key issues to settle. First, that of governance: what influence will the composition of the Congress and Senate have in the case of a Hillary Clinton victory? The road might be downhill: the Democrats might in fact, swing a majority. Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House who long ago abandoned Trump – now given as defeated – is well aware of that. He is looking, he has stated, to save the Republican Party in the House and the Senate. On one hand, Donald Trump was nominated with the highest number of votes ever received by a Republican candidate; at the same time, he seems to have left the Grand Old Party in ruins, inducing authoritative exponents frightened by his extremist arguments to flee. Instead, he inspires widespread acclaim among that vast sea of anti-establishment voters who form the hard core of his support. Whatever happens, another issue to deal with is a divided country, and in any case a candidate who does not accept the result in the polls. That would not only create a weak point in American political history, but might also encourage disputes not immune to violent behavior.
As for international relations, American foreign policy with Hillary in the White House should not change much. Not only because the Obama administration’s decisions were mostly made in agreement between the President and the Secretary of State, but also because the multilateral line of the US is now a fact. A complex issue in any case will be that of relations with Russia. On one hand, a President Trump would most certainly be a loyal ally of Moscow. Hillary’s position would be more hardline – see the accusation of cyber war against Russia from all over the American democratic establishment, including Obama – and the new administration will need a large dose of realpolitik, and a pragmatic, post-ideological approach.
What may change instead is the US energy policy, which – in the Obama era – reached the important goal of energy independence. The Obama line on climate change and energy supply may not be the Clinton line. Or at least that is the concern of Brussels. Europe will seek to represent a balance between the new US administration and Russia, both for geopolitical reasons and because the goal is even more strategic in a post–Brexit scenario.
Another important point in shaping the post-election scenario is that of trade agreements. Trump has made this one of the pillars of his campaign’s economic policy, rejecting any kind of past and future agreements between geographical and geopolitical areas. For the Republican candidate, trade agreements should be eliminated because they have only damaged the American economy and impoverished the middle and working classes. This position provides Trump with a broad consensus, though his theories wander far from the Republican tradition. Hillary Clinton knows this and also knows that her own position with respect to the trade agreements signed by the United States has changed. The Democrats’ international economic choices come in the wake of traditional approval, but certainly the issue has always been and will always be open to debate. Europe knows that and is following the stalled TTIP negotiations – that strategic agreement for further harmonization of European and American markets – with concern. And the recent Wallonia position against the treaty between Europe and Canada that seemed clinched after seven years of negotiations is no help to Brussels and even less to the Democratic candidate.
