Hillary’s Moderation Wards Off Trump’s Ghost

Hillary Clinton took advantage of the first of three presidential debates scheduled before the elections on Nov. 8 to reinforce her stately image and to present herself as the only reasonable choice for the next president of the United States. All experts and analysts agreed that the Democratic candidate was much better than her Republican rival, an authentic TV animal who arrived to one of the most important political meetings of his campaign without a script, trusting purely in his ability to improvise, relying on his particular telegenic qualities and popularity.

Despite the negative opinion that a large part of Americans have toward Donald Trump, it is true that the millionaire businessman successfully became the Republican candidate, defying all predictions, and that about 40 days from the elections, he and Clinton are very close in the polls.

In this sense, the former secretary of state did not only have to break down Trump’s xenophobic, racist, misogynist, and populist proposals in the debate. She also had to go up against a candidate trusted by irrational citizens, disillusioned by politics, and impoverished working-class citizens who want to hear quick and easy solutions, like the ones proposed by Trump. For that reason, in a debate without too much stress and in which some of the most pressing issues for Americans were left untouched, Clinton strove to attack Trump’s image as a successful businessman, reproaching him for having made his fortune by not paying taxes, something that the Republican is proud of. She also presented him as a candidate without the levelheadedness needed to make decisions with repercussions worldwide.

Regarding proposals, Hillary, a candidate who fails to seduce even many of her own party, proved convincing, showed superiority and experience, and exhibited solvency when addressing topics in economics and foreign politics. To do so, she adopted a statistical tone with which she sought to reassure U.S. allies about the defense and security agreements they share. On the other hand, Trump repeated his trite critique against the United States’ foreign policy and demanded yet again that NATO member countries increase their budgetary allocations to keep the organization operative.

In addition to resorting to his favorite slogan, “law and order,” Trump failed to contribute anything new. However, he left Republicans at peace, as he did not have any outbursts nor was he particularly conceited or disparaging toward his rival, whom he has publicly belittled at every opportunity in the past. In the last leg of the campaign, Trump’s potential voters hope that he does not provide them with a reason not to vote for him.

It is true that Hillary Clinton did not stimulate excitement even among her own supporters and that she has many shortcomings as a candidate. However, political circumstances have determined that it has fallen to her to stop populism, a phenomenon so widespread that it is not alien even to the world’s top superpower.

A victory for Trump would not only be catastrophic for the United States but also for the rest of the world. For that reason, we should hope the campaign stays as it is. Although there are still two more debates before the elections, it is comforting to know that in the first one, Clinton’s moderation and reasonable proposals prevailed over the populist demagogy of a slovenly candidate.