The U.S. presidential campaign has gone beyond any surprises in regards the low level of political debate. Never in U.S. history has such a vile, gross and unethical political dispute ever taken place at the presidential level. There is a variety of explanations to be given, but one of them has perhaps not been given enough attention. This is Marc Fiorentino's theory. He explained it on internet journal Monfinancier. It is interesting enough to be taken seriously: his idea is that Donald Trump never seriously wanted to become president. Almost all analysts agree on the fact that he is mostly responsible for the sabotaging of his own campaign. He does not have a program; he does not wish to have one. He is not interested in enlarging his audience, to attract more and diverse people to vote for him, as Hillary Clinton has been doing.
Trump is interested in deepening the divide between his target audience and the others. He probably did not think initially that he would storm the nomination struggle within the Grand Old Party and so get easily the nomination. But he has done it and he is presently interested in radicalizing the stance of the white middle class in the U.S., which remains his bedrock. He cannot win a presidential election with the votes of this social class only, that is obvious. However, he is already preparing a formidable audience pool for a future media infrastructure (which by the way is almost in place).
The presidential campaign is a platform Donald Trump never dreamed of, even in his wildest fantasies. He is using it wildly, never letting any opportunity to break down unwritten or accepted rules of political decorum and seemliness escape. He is largely helped by the atmosphere of "fin de siecle" that creates a deep resentment and defiance among social classes against the established political elite.
In a nutshell, a victory for Hillary Clinton, which looks more and more plausible, would only be a new beginning for Trump, who will use all his venom to unsettle a new administration and a new president in the throes of death with innumerable problems all over the world.
In this vein, a defeat for Trump will only be the second round of a much deeper ongoing struggle, which looks more and more like a systemic change along with all the torment it generates.
Seen from that viewpoint, comparing Trump to Vladimir Putin or Jaroslaw Kaczynski, as Guy Verhofstadt has done in his article "The West's Other Trump," published in Social Europe, explains only the visible side of the phenomenon. Obviously, the government in Poland, as well as the government of Victor Orban in Hungary, cannot be used as examples of pluralistic and democratic society governance. Both countries are psychologically important to the European Union, because they remain the symbols, (together with Czechoslovakia) of Western Europe's inability to help their parents on the other side of the Iron Curtain. As Verhofstadt correctly analyses: "Poland was once Central Europe's post-Cold War democratic poster child. But now the PiS is pursuing a wide-ranging power grab, seeking control of the country's constitutional court, public media channels, and security services. Instead of cementing Poland's strategic importance to NATO and its rightful place as a powerful, respected EU member state, the PiS has become obsessed with reversing modernity."
The rise of the extreme right and more importantly its influence on the ideas of European Conservative parties is one thing, to think that Trump is a Hollywood version of European conservative leaders is altogether another thing. Poland and Hungary are important member states of the EU and the symbols of the European unification of the post-Cold War era, however their economic and political influences are very limited, even within the EU.
The U.S. remains by far the biggest economy in the world and by far the biggest military power. It cannot be compared to any other nation, still ideological "illiberalism" as coined by Verhofstadt, relayed by conventional and social media, can destabilize the U.S. administration and create a real problem all over the world. Therefore, it would be much wiser to see how Donald Trump wants to fare after the elections. Bearing in mind the cost of the neo-con policies of the U.S. in the Middle East, it is of utmost importance to analyze and to denounce Trump's strategy in the aftermath of the U.S. presidential elections.