Bill Clinton's defeat of George Bush in 1992 ended 12 years of Republican rule and the conservative reform program begun by Reagan. Clinton's social programs -- such as leave during pregnancy or serious medical condition and the easing of restrictions on family planning programs -- together with his hopes for a federally-funded universal health care program outraged conservatives.  Recurring reports of Clinton's marital infidelity added to conservative annoyance and provided sticks to beat him with. In 2009 the Tea Party -- a loose coalition of hard-right conservatives devoted to the smallest ambit of US Federal governance and sweeping tax cuts -- emerged. Tea Party representatives in Congress were simply not given to the sort of log-rolling and compromise that had previously characterized US governance. The real rupture in cross-party cooperation came with the nastiness of the Whitewater Affair and the personal attacks in the context of Clinton's impeachment proceedings. Gerrymandered constituencies virtually ensured the election of radicals to the House of Representatives and deepened the rift between Democrats and Republicans.  Debate in the House of Representatives became something of a mean-spirited ideological shouting match of the willfully deaf.  The quota of bridge-building moderates on both sides began to recede.  Very few remain.  Barring a bouleversement in the coming elections, the next Congress will be the worst and most ill-tempered yet. Many, if not most, Democrats still believe George Bush's victory over Al Gore was a corruption of the democratic process; Democrats believe the election was 'stolen' from them by the five Reagan-appointed Supreme Court justices who accepted the argument that "hanging chads" did not count as votes for the Democrat candidate, Al  Gore.  Bush won with a lower national vote count than Gore. And so, the die was cast. Incivility and confrontation; bombast and fear-mongering came to characterize US politics. This was not a matter of personalities or vociferous disagreements over policy options; it was a matter of fundamental disagreement about what the US as a state should be. It is hard to see how there can be compromise between the two sides -- as a result, policy debate has degenerated into mean-spirited slander and character assassination.  Time and again, Congress has found itself stymied, particularly on budgetary measures, even when a default loomed. On the one hand Donald Trump personifies crassness and incivility; on the other, as a Washington outsider, he benefits from its consequences: the political stalemate in Congress.     Is a significant portion of the US electorate irrational? The American Values Survey, a collaboration of the Public Religion Research Institute and Brookings reports:

• 55% of Trump's Republican and Republican-leaning voters are white working class citizens.
• 69% say immigration is a critical issue for them.
• 80% believe immigrants are a burden to the US, taking American jobs, housing and welfare.
• 74% believe that discrimination against whites is a serious as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.

These beliefs are said to reflect personal experience. Working class earnings have stagnated and US workers' pay-packets are thinner than they were 45 years ago.   Higher labour productivity should have, according to standard economic theory, resulted in substantial wage increases. This has not occurred; the longstanding  link between productivity and wage rates is effectively broken. Manufacturing's share of GDP has long been in decline and trade union membership has collapsed.  Republican-inspired anti-union Right-to-Work legislation has played a role.  So has off-shoring of productive capacity.  These and related factors have significantly diminished the bargaining power of low and moderate wage workers in the labor market. Right-wing Trump supporters seem to have much in common, at least in terms of motivation, with the left-wing Occupy Movement.  The basic issue is rising inequality and the political and economic power of the 1%.  Economic and social mobility has been throttled as a consequence.  The children of US workers will not do as well as their parents.  Favourable legislation, especially on intellectual property, for the 1% and generously-funded bail-outs of the big, putatively too-big-to-fail banks and other large companies in the 2008 financial crisis added to white working class fury.  That the Bush Administration had been profligate and the Fed, under Greenspan, asleep at the switch was soon forgotten when Obama was elected. Naturally, Donald Trump has offered up tax reform.  He proposes a 25% top rate and a significant increase in the standard deduction ostensibly to add to take-home earnings, especially by low-wage earners.  However, The Economist of 2 January, 2016 calculates that, taken as a whole, Trump's tax reform package entails an 82% reduction in discretionary spending (i.e., not including social security or health care).  Such swinging cuts to the fiscal framework mean the operational dismantling of the Federal Government -- massive down-sizing, in the jargon of the day -- and, with that, the end of a meaningful US Federal role in ensuring the well-being of Americans. The alternative would be a massive increase in the Federal debt, an outcome anathema to Trump and other conservatives.  This would happen at a time when retiring baby boomers are swelling the ranks of the retired and fiscal outlays on their behalf are expected to balloon. There is more.  Under Trump's tax plan, the 1% would enjoy a windfall of 18% in after-tax income; middle-earners benefit to the tune of 5%; and the bottom fifth will have to make do with a miserly 1% increase.  The massive cuts in tax paid by the rich put in place by George Bush in the early 2000's, widely trumpeted as a stimulus to growth at the time, produced no such thing.  The fiscal surplus inherited from the Clinton Administration quickly melted away.  The deficit ballooned.  Federal borrowing increased massively. Trump's fiscal shenanigans would carry with them significant social costs.  More importantly for those of us on the outside looking in, the primacy of the US$ as a reserve currency would eventually be drawn into question.  Worth pondering: the US$ as the world reserve currency allows the US to have foreigners, ever eager to buy T-Bills and other US Government paper, to finance its fiscal shortfalls.  As the US$ is the currency in which most trade and much international lending is denominated, the end of its primacy would entail financial chaos.  No other currency, neither the Yuan nor the Euro nor the Yen, is well-placed to take the place of the US$.  The C$ would tank.  Such outcomes are a distant prospect but, under a Trump Administration, far from impossible. A Trump election is not implausible Since he announced his candidacy, main-line media pundits have predicted the imminent disintegration of Trump's campaign. We are told that the "great and the good" of the Republican Party are appalled and putting sticks in Trump's electoral spokes.  But month on month and week on week, Trump's support has grown -- and we know from recent experience in Canada how voters, unhappy with the incumbents and eager for change, will cast their ballot for the likely winner. Trump does not as yet enjoy clear sailing to the GOP convention in Cleveland.  Local factors make a difference and in the South religion makes a big difference. Religion is not an honour card for Trump and his need to make in-roads into the religious conservative vote is the reason why he reversed earlier positions on such matters as abortion and gender equality.  Tea Party darling Sarah Palin's recent endorsement is important as her standing with the religious right is very high.  But Trump did poorly among Evangelicals in Iowa.  At this point, Ted Cruz looks to harvest the religious vote. More important, as far as the out-come of the GOP convention is concerned, is the rule issued by the Republican National Committee to the effect that convention delegates in primaries held before 15 March will be accorded on a proportional basis while primaries held after 15 March will be held on a winner-take-all basis.  A sizeable 1025 Republican delegate seats are up for grabs before 15 March; another 1445 will be selected after; 1236 votes are needed to win the Republican presidential nomination.   Not all delegates are bound to support the candidate for whom they have been elected; a small, but significant number are unbound.  In Wyoming and Colorado, delegates are not bound at all.  A further wrinkle in the RNC's rules is significant: delegates are only bound for the first ballot, though state rules have an impact on this provision as on others.  To be sure of the nomination, therefore, Trump must win on the first ballot. Trump has already severely damaged the long term electoral prospects of the Republican Party.  Blacks have historically rejected the Republicans.  His diatribes against Mexicans will ensure a long-run disaffection for the GOP by Latinos, the largest minority group in the US and the fastest growing one.  Currently Latinos are mostly concentrated in the US West and Southwest.  Latinos are also significant voter blocs in delegate-rich states like Illinois, Florida, Texas and California, crucially needed to ensure victory in presidential elections where gerrymandered constituencies that have fostered radical extremism like the Tea Party do not play a role.  In Republican primaries minority voters do not count for much. This US Federal election will be the most diverse in US history with as much as 31% of the electorate being non-white. But Latinos and other minorities have not been avid voters.  Latinos have the lowest voter participation rate - 31.2% - of any ethnic or racial group.  Consequently, the Latino vote has not been crucial in a number of state elections where they form a significant bloc like the last gubernatorial contest in Florida.  Still Latinos were a big factor in Obama's re-election.  Trump's fulsomely racist anti-Mexican rhetoric will surely prompt a good Latino turn-out in the Presidential elections, were he to be the nominee. From some perspectives, Trump's pandering to white racist nativists can be analyzed as similar to, in electoral but not moral terms, the anti-segregation policies of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, which destroyed the Democratic Party in the Deep South.  From that time the states of the Confederacy have been firmly in the Red column.  Latinos, despite conservative instincts born of their Catholicism, may become reliable Democratic voters much like American Blacks. By 2050, a bare majority of Americans will be "brown"; a little more than half of US babies born in the last year were not white.  A Trump nomination would cast the Republicans as the party of anti-black, anti-Latino white bigots.  On the other hand, a "managed convention" that side-swiped Trump would disaffect much of the current Republican base.  There is no happy ending for the Republican Party, neither in the short run nor the long. Another of the RNC's worries is that Trump may have "negative coattails".  A Trump Presidential candidacy could result in losses in races for Senate and House of Representative seats.  Most Republican leaders do not want to see Trump as their Presidential candidate.  Before the Iowa caucuses an "anyone-but Trump" predisposition seized senior Republicans.  Paul Ryan, conservative Speaker of the House of Representatives, discretely warned off potential donors to the Trump campaign --  even though he has not asked for their money.  Now the Establishment is waiting for a credible and electable alternative to Trump to emerge. Iowa and New Hampshire: A Reality Check It is early days in the interminable presidential election process the US inflicts on itself.  Already there have been accidents and surprises and miscalculations; many more can be expected before the delegates gather in Cleveland, where additional drama is a virtual certainty. Some things to bear in mind when reading about the progress of the campaign to date and assessing future developments:

• In Iowa Hillary Clinton lost by a wide margin to Bernie Sanders but she got more votes than Republican runner-up, Donald Trump (41,726 to 41,483).
• Iowa and New Hampshire are not only tiny states electorally, they are also quintessentially unrepresentative of the US electorate.  Iowa is lily-white and deeply Evangelical; there are almost no minority groups.  New Hampshire is also mostly white and more moderate in political orientation than most states. There are few lessons to be drawn for the analysis of the wider campaigns.
• The media has become part of the story.  CNN was in a tiff with Ted Cruz about a purported report that Ben Carson had left the campaign; Cruz's team had used the report to unfair advantage.  Trump disingenuously called for a re-run. Huffington Post's Trump coverage began in the Entertainment Section and later headlined Trump's New Hampshire win with "A Racist, Sexist Demagogue Just Won the New Hampshire Primary".  The New York Daily Post was a bit more creative, using the headline "Dawn of the Brain-dead" accompanied by a photoshopped picture of Donald Trump in clown make-up.  Trump's "blood dispute" with Fox News' Megyn Kelly got wide coverage. Perhaps needless to say, the news media are no longer trusted and, what trust still exists is sharply divided on partisan lines; e.g., conservatives preferring Fox News and moderates and progressives,The New York Times.
• Independent voters provided Sanders with his margin of victory over Clinton; she beat him 56% to 39% with bona fide Democratic Party card-holders.  Independents also played a disproportionate role in the Republican tally.  (Note: The Iowa Caucuses are "closed" which is to say only declared Democrats and Republicans can participate.  However, late registration or re-registration from one of the main parties or No Party is permitted.)  Similarly, Independents played a role in New Hampshire but not as dramatically.
• Debates matter -- but not always. T rump checked out of the Iowa debate, probably because Megyn Kelly was the moderator, and paid a price.  Kasich did well in the New Hampshire debate and came in a surprising second.  But, while Christie skewered Cruz, he ended up going home to New Jersey.
• Polls suggest that as much as 50% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party.  There is also a significant anti-establishment tendency among Democrats.
• Experience in the US (and in Canada) over the last two decades suggests a deterioration in the accuracy of polls.  The accuracy of polls depends in good measure on the persistence of historical trends which is less and less the case.  Also, given the large number of candidates that have fallen by the wayside, previous polls on primaries yet to come are of questionable accuracy.

What's Next? The list of Republican Presidential wannabes has been severely pruned.  Remaining are:

• The front-runner Donald Trump, was a disappointment in Iowa but redeemed his moxie in New Hampshire. Nonetheless the Iowa Caucuses showed organizational weaknesses -- his team did not get out and protect the vote that polls had promised -- and he can make mistakes.  A no-show at the final debate, he sullied his image as the "fearless outsider fighting for the common man".  Trump's strongest states are New York and West Virginia.  Trump should do well on Super Tuesday.  He has strength in the South, Appalachia and the industrial Northeast.  Trump thrives in states where there are high levels of racial resentment.
• Calgary-born Ted Cruz did well in Iowa on the strength of Evangelical and conservative support; he faded in more politically moderate and less religious New Hampshire.  His support base seems narrow but he will do well in Texas, his home state, and in states with large religious populations.
• Neo-con Marco Rubio surprised in Iowa and elevated himself to become the Republican establishment's anti-Trump White Knight.  Tarred as a "robo-candidate" in an appalling performance in a New Hampshire debate, he languished at the polls.  Rubio is addressing much the same demographics as Kasich and Bush.  This competition does not speak well for any of the three remaining Republican establishment favourites.  If Rubio survives Super Tuesday and Kasich and Carson drop out, he could do better in the rest of the primaries, assuming the supporters of the drop-outs migrate and vote.

Trump, Cruz and Rubio count as the pack leaders at this juncture.  Cruz and Trump look to be the best placed to be fighting it out to the end.  Jeb Bush, the Republican establishment's true heart throb, was very well financed and, of all the trailing candidates in the Republican race, appeared to be the only one with the best chance to join the front-runners.  But, appearances can be deceiving; after a string of disappointing results, Bush recently suspended his campaign.  Ohio Governor John Kasich won second place in New Hampshire and will go on.  But his name recognition is poor and his New Hampshire achievement is probably his campaign's high water mark.  Ben Carson, who has faced allegations suggesting an embellished CV, also persists.  Some observers think his campaign is a laundry to funnel donations to his friends.  Carson and Kasich are likely to be the next scratches among the second tier candidates. Crunching the Numbers   Trump leads the polls in most Republican primaries but in only a few cases does his score exceed 40%.  This matters for his delegate count in the primaries before March 15th.  Cruz will take Texas in a walk, counting 44.1% to 29% for Trump and only 8% for Rubio in most current polls.  In Florida, Rubio's home state, Trump leads him 54% to 30%.  South Carolina and Michigan are further states of significant Trump strength.  Trump's support, however, usually hovers in the 30-35% range. This is enough in most states to make him the leader in polls.  He will win a large share of delegates before mid-March and most of them after, barring a complete reversal of fortune.  This may well add up to the first ballot victory Trump needs to be assured of the nomination. That's the good news for Trump.  On the debit side of the polling ledger is his electability.  Chris Christie, who topped this category with a 52.5% probability rating, is gone.  Cruz rates 35% and Rubio, 41.6%.  Trump brings up the rear with a miserable 25.7% chance of becoming President.  US pundits have made much of Trump's impressive scores in all demographic categories including, somewhat surprisingly, the college-educated and Latinos in Nevada, for example.  It is worth remembering how few voters participated in the Nevada caucuses - about 35,000.  Any predictions of voter behaviour based on such small samples are risky. Curiously, Sanders scores better than any of the current Republican candidates on electability.  Hillary Clinton does best of all with some ratings well over 50%.  In polling for forthcoming state primaries, Clinton's lead over Sanders is in the double digits everywhere except Vermont, Sanders' home state, and Oklahoma.  Clinton's national polls give her 49.6% over Sanders' 39.1%. The out-turn of these trends after the Nevada Democratic Caucuses and the South Carolina Republican primary broadly confirms a Clinton/Trump face-off for the US Presidency.  But a number of caveats need to be taken into account:

• Clinton's victory over Sanders in Nevada benefited significantly from Latino casino workers being bussed in courtesy of Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid's state machine.  Clinton will continue to benefit from this kind of assistance from the Democrat establishment.  This will not necessarily serve her image in the Presidential elections.
• Trump did significantly better than Cruz among South Carolina's evangelicals.  If Trump can repeat the trick elsewhere, the Cruz campaign may be in real trouble.  Trump is continuing to harp on another of Cruz's weaknesses: his birth in Calgary.
• Much of the vote for the now-departed Jeb Bush may well migrate to Rubio.  It can be safely assumed that the Republican establishment will now pull out all the stops in efforts to support Rubio.  Given the deep anti-establishment sentiments in much of the Republican base, this could back-fire.
• New Jersey Governor Chris Christie surprised observers with a declaration of support for Donald Trump.  Much has and will be made of this and other endorsements by the media pundits.  Given the deep anti-establishment emotions in play, such endorsements mean much less than in the past.  For the record, Rubio leads the endorsement race, having garnered roughly 150 to Trump's dozen.  To date, this has not seemed to help Rubio to any noticeable extent.

But in head to head polling by Fox News, Trump is not the best Republican choice to take on Clinton:

• Clinton vs. Trump: Clinton +5.0%
• Clinton vs. Cruz: Cruz +1.0 %
• Clinton vs. Rubio: Rubio +4.0%

Meanwhile, Fox News also has Sanders beating Trump by 15%.  These sorts of numbers lack predictive power but can be analyzed usefully in terms of voter sentiment. Plainly, voters are uncomfortable with Clinton and would prefer another Democrat choice.  In assessing traditional poll numbers and the ones still to come, it is worthwhile remembering that the predictive accuracy of polls depends on their coherence with historical trends.  If nothing else, the climate of fear and vehement anti-establishment sentiment ensures that this US Presidential Election process does not reflect historical trends.  Bearing in mind this caveat here are some recent polling results: Presidential election (CNN Market Poll, 26/02/2016 - measuring likelihood of victory):

• Democrat win: 61% (In a separate Market Poll, Clinton beats Trump 57% to 25%)
• Republican win: 39%

Presidential candidates (CNN Market Poll, 26/02/2016 - measuring likelihood of nomination):

• Trump: 71%
• Rubio: 25%
• Cruz: 3%
• (Note: Though the traditional polling numbers are tightening, Clinton is streets ahead of Sanders and she has the advantage of Democrat Party establishment support.)

Republican Candidates National Poll Averages (RealClearPolitcs) and (FiveThirtyEight)

• Trump: 33.2% and 34.8%
• Cruz: 20.3% and 19.4%
• Rubio: 16.7% and 16.2%

In any event, these numbers will change as the campaign proceeds. Yet to be really taken into account, however, is the baggage Hillary Clinton is burdened with: Whitewater, Obamacare, Benghazi and "deleted emails" come to mind, the substance of a potentially effective campaign of character assassination.  She is a poor campaigner and one cannot rule out a damaging campaign miscue or accident that sinks her candidacy.  Trump appears to be immune to these kinds of possible problems.  Most important in a period of anti-establishment resentment, Clinton suffers under most of the disadvantages of incumbency, without enjoying any of the benefits.  Most important: will the vast numbers of mostly young people who are voting for Sanders bother to come out to vote for Clinton in the Presidential election.  Expect a Democrat campaign that highlights the scarier bits of Trump's to-do list and the less salubrious aspects of his record -- his bankruptcies, his efforts to foreclose on a property owned by a "poor" widow in Atlantic City, his hypocrisy (in hiring illegals, imports and lots more), his still unreleased tax returns.  There is lots of material.  Recent debates have Rubio and Cruz pursuing such a strategy and setting the stage for Clinton. And, a further indication that nothing has yet been definitively cast in stone lies in the fact that US stock markets have not yet declined to discount the effects of a potential Trump (or Sanders) presidency. We shall see. The Out-turn for Canada The long-run agenda of Canada's Conservatives pointed in much the same directions of limited state social and economic responsibility coupled with much reduced interest or political involvement internationally.  In electing Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, Canadians opted for a progressive agenda of social and economic reform together with an international stance freighted with traditionally liberal beliefs and values. After World War II, during the period of progressive (largely Democrat at the time, except for the largely moderate Eisenhower years) ascendency, Liberal-governed Canada enjoyed considerable influence in Washington.  With the resurgence of American conservative opinion and the sharpening and radicalization of the political struggle between progressives and conservatives, Canada's influence has receded. The success of Hillary Clinton's (or someone like her) presidential aspirations would best serve Canadian interests and values. But, given the inward-looking and unremitting confrontation between US progressives and conservatives, Canada's influence in Washington will not return in anything like a useful measure as in the past. The support Trump has marshalled as well as that of the declared social-democrat, Bernie Sanders, shows clearly a deep desire for change -- that the old politics and the well-worn catch-phrase solutions are no longer seen as useful or constructive.  This is worth considering from a policy standpoint to frame Canada's US out-reach. Both Trump and Sanders are anti-establishment candidates.  Trump, an erstwhile Democrat, only recently joined the Republicans.  Sanders is not even a bona fide member of the Democratic Party; he joined the Democratic Senate Caucus very recently.  Their platforms in their anti-establishment aspects are very similar, though expressed in rather different language. They both speak to constituencies that consider themselves ignored and disenfranchised: Trump to disappointed and fearful lower middle class workers and Sanders to Millennial youth, jobless or under-employed and labouring under crushing student loans. Trump speaks from a traditional position of small-state conservatism.  Sanders, on the other hand, has different roots that lie in the anti-Viet Nam War movement of the 1960's.  A former Trotskyist, Sanders comes from the same social and political milieu that spawned the SDS and the Weathermen.  That someone with his background and avowed beliefs could credibly run for President of the US speaks volumes about the transformation of the US political space, as does Trump's candidacy, for that matter.  The division between Trump and Sanders, between workers doomed by globalization and Millennials struggling to come to terms with it is deep and bitter.  There is no corner solution that would satisfy both constituencies, who are simply markers for the wider gulf among Americans in general about what sort of state the US should be and what role it should play in the world.  This division will not end with the coming US elections. But whether the US will return to an isolationist and/or limited state or continue as one liberal and progressive and constructively involved in world affairs will not be finally decided in this election.  The ideological divisions are too deep and too raw for a single election to resolve.  But one thing is certain: Trump represents a past whose mythic character prevents its re-establishment.  Whether Sanders represents the future is much less clear.  But both of them represent a profound change in the US political spectrum.  Both will leave their mark. We in Canada will have to find means and policies to live as constructively as possible with the US until economic progress and demographic change have served to renovate the US political stage. And one final dim glimmer of hopefulness: US governance is quite famously characterized by a division of powers.  The House of Representatives, the Senate, as well as the Supreme Court will play a role, perhaps a moderating one, in the face of Trump's more extreme policies.  On the other hand, a hard-right dominated Congress may make his schemes legislatively feasible.  The current contretemps over whether or not Obama should name a Supreme Court replacement for the deceased Justice Scalia is an opening salvo in that undoubtedly bitter struggle.  The time is long past when US Justices -- and politicians -- were assessed on professional merit rather than their ideological predisposition.   Sven Jurschewsky has had postings to New Delhi, Zagreb, Vienna, Lagos, Bonn and Berlin. In 1999, while posted to Beijing as Head of the Political Section he was tasked to effect Canada's recognition of the DPRK (in support of President Clinton's “soft landing policy”). He has led or participated in security initiatives in crisis areas including, among others, Bosnia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Baltic States and Slovakia. He has also at various times been assigned to handle OSCE, IAEA and UN affairs.  During his time at DFAIT's Lester B Pearson building, he has served in a number of roles, including: preparations for the Rio Earth Summit; preparation of NAFTA feasibility studies; participation in Paris Club debt re-schedulings; Head of both the West and East German Desks, as well as the desks for Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Island States. He headed the headquarters unit responsible for current intelligence assessment, the Global Security Reporting Program, liaison with Five Eyes Partners and related matters. In non-proliferation and arms control he played a significant role in the 1995 NPT Extension Conference. Before joining Canada's foreign service, he taught philosophy at the University of Toronto.