When I was in school, I remember learning about the Napoleonic wars. For those of you who may not be so familiar with those wars, they were the aftermath of the the French revolution, and had a major influence on all the wars since then. They particularly had a major impact on World War I and World War II. It is not often brought up in what way they impact modern warfare, however, but it is simple. In the years before the Napoleonic wars, soldiers were professionals who focused on fighting. They were not civilians. If you go back far enough, of course, this was not true, but in the 17th and 18th centuries, armies were made up of professional soldiers. This has varied at times throughout history, but the Napoleonic wars transitioned from this to Universal Conscription. As a result, the French army under Napoleon was a massive force of approximately 500 000 soldiers. This was at a time when the entire world's population was just reaching 1 billion, Europe in total had only 200 million, and France had less than 30 million people. Considering that, the number of soldiers was huge. This did not significantly change anything about war, except for the scale of war. The scale of war, however, changed everything. That scale still remains in place, in large measure, for all wars that are fought at home, so while it may seem that things have reverted to the format of using only professional soldiers, this is not typically the case for countries where fighting is occurring. In fact, it is merely an illusion in a world that has more conflict, but the conflict is more localized.
So what does this have to do with the US election? Well, on the surface, nothing. War and politics are related, but not closely enough for this to have a direct impact on the current election. However, the tactics are important. How do you win battles, and eventually a way? You change tactics. This is especially true if you are losing. You create the ideal situation for yourself to win. This can be mirrored in politics. What are the tactics your opponent is using? She is setting herself up as the best possible candidate? You attack her credentials, put her on the defensive, make sure she doesn't have the airtime to question your credentials. You don't have enough of a platform or plan? Spend all of your time attacking your opponent, make sure you don't have time to talk about it. Attack everything about your opponent. Question every statement, emphasize every misstep.
Of course, the nature of modern politics have been changing slowly over several years. It has become less about stating your position, and more about attacking your opponent. However, Republican candidate Donald Trump is taking it to an entirely new level, while Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is trying to play the same sort of political games from years past. That makes this an extraordinarily unique election, where people are angry, uncertain, devoted, impassioned, and apathetic. Trump is outrageous, and that makes people respond in unusual ways. Trump is generating free press, and is keeping Clinton out of the spotlight.
So what is that going to mean? Well, it could mean a lot of things. It could lead to the end of the Republican party, and the rise of a new political party. This seems unusual in US politics, but outside of the US, it is much more common. Even in the US, it has happened more recently than it appears, with the significant shifts of the Democratic and Republican parties in the mid-twentieth century. It could lead to civil war, as the hatred, distrust, and combativeness increase, but that seems unlikely for now. It could literally lead to an electoral college gridlock, with relatively few passionate supporters of Clinton, and numerous passionate supporters for Trump and various third party candidates including Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin, and others. This is especially true because Johnson and McMullin have heavy regional support, making it possible that they could grab some electoral votes in their home states of Utah and New Mexico. It could mean that politics are going to be about who can dig up the most mud on their opponent. It may mean that the level of speeches are going to be moving t a simpler level, as Trump tends to speak more simply and that is getting attention. It could mean that candidates are going to speak more aggressively, flamboyantly, and gregariously. The importance of media attention that Trump has demonstrated is extraordinary. Most likely, it means that things will not be the same again. Not much has changed, other than the scale, but that can change everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment