This US election may well go down as the most divisive and toxic on record. The bitter war of words, accusations and acrimony is truly unprecedented. What is even more remarkable about this contest is the singularly unappetising nature of both choices on offer. It is a Hobson's choice. That is, no choice at all. While the raving madness and open bigotry of Donald Trump has understandably driven voters, especially minorities and immigrants, into the welcoming arms of Hillary Clinton, she doesn't inspire excessive confidence either. Indeed, when it comes to the core agenda, fealty to various special interests, including the military-industrial complex, Israel and Wall Street, differences between the two candidates' approach are hardly striking. As the going got increasingly tough over the past few months, Trump has sharpened his bitter, personal attacks on his Democratic rival. From his sexist jibes to taunting Hillary on her health and age to suggesting that she is “puffed up” on drugs and a national security threat, the Republican candidate has tried every dirty trick in the book. Some of his unorthodox supporters have even compared this election to Flight 93 that crashed as part of 9/11 attacks: “2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway,” writes ‘Publius Decius Mus' for the Claremont Institute. To be fair to Hillary, with the experience of two presidential campaigns and long years in the White House under her belt, she has conducted herself well, remaining cool under fire. Besides, she knows she doesn't have to try too hard to get Trump when the real estate mogul is doing everything himself to undermine his chances. She has given him a long rope with which to hang himself. There are lessons for everyone in the dramatic rise and fall of Trump's electoral fortunes. His xenophobic attacks on Muslims, immigrants, women and other minorities may have worked in attracting a following of predominantly white, conservative Republicans, and eventually landing the nomination, to the horror of the establishment. Post-nomination though, the same cynical, negative approach has seriously clouded his prospects. Trump's outrageous demagoguery and reputation of being a bull in the political china shop had been part of the candidate's original appeal. But now when he must appeal to a broad base of electorate, it is too much to stomach for mainstream America, with its breath-taking cultural and ethnic diversity. The average voter is apparently repelled by his politics of hate, targeting minorities, immigrants and women. So what seemed like a shining badge of honour in the run up to the nomination has now become a millstone around his neck. The recent damning disclosures, in which he is heard boasting about his numerous conquests and casual sexual excursions, horrifying even the most loyal of Trump supporters, including his own family, may prove the proverbial last straw on the camel's back. It has been followed by more blasts from the past with several women coming forward to claim he had preyed on them. These developments have the entire GOP establishment up in arms with top Republicans, including Speaker Paul Ryan, attacking Trump and distancing themselves from his campaign. There have even been calls demanding the scalp of Trump the Terrible. This is unprecedented. With “D-day” being less than two weeks away, though, it's too late for such desperate measures. All those who think the politics of hate pays and is the shortest ride to power ought to learn from Trump's example. However, while the idea of Trump as the “leader of the free world” and the holder of the most powerful office on earth gives you heebie-jeebies, anyone who is familiar with Hillary's past and her hawkish policies would think twice before wishing her on America. As Ross Douthat argues in The New York Times, “the dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump's authoritarian unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this establishmentarian type of folly.” Douthat views her as someone whose “record embodies the tendencies that gave rise to Trumpism in the first place.” As for the Arab and Islamic world, a Clinton presidency could mean perpetuating the status quo with the famous unquestioning support to Israel further deepening at the expense of justice, freedom and human rights. She has consistently demonstrated a hawkish streak on foreign policy issues, often outdoing Bill Clinton. As a senator she voted for and passionately supported the neocon wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, along with more than half of Senate Democrats of course. At least Trump talks sense when he suggests that the Iraq invasion was a disaster. Given an opportunity, Hillary is unlikely to shy away from using her powers as commander-in-chief to order more such disasters to please her friends in Israel and the arms industry at home. The recent Wikileaks disclosures about her lucrative speeches to Goldman Sachs and her extensive interaction with Israel and its friends in high places paint a disturbing picture of a career politician with few scruples. In paid speeches to elite financial firms, reports the New York Times, Hillary displayed an easy comfort with titans of business, embraced unfettered international trade and praised a budget-balancing plan that would have required cuts to Social Security. The tone and language of the excerpts clash with the liberal image she presented during her bitter primary battle with Senator Bernie Sanders and could have undermined her candidacy had they become public, says the Times. But it is her equation with Israel that should be a real source of concern to America's Arab and Muslim allies. The dump of thousands of emails hacked from John Podesta's account shows that powerful campaign donors forced Hillary to take an aggressive pro-Israel stance on key foreign policy issues. Stuart Eizenstat, a former US ambassador to the EU under Bill Clinton who acted as a liaison between Hillary and Israel, says in an email to Hillary's campaign team: “Prime Minister (Netanyahu) always had a surprisingly good relationship with Hillary; she is easy to work with, and she is more instinctively sympathetic to Israel than the White House.” In a letter to billionaire media mogul Haim Saban, the candidate who could replace Obama in the White House in January, vows “to make countering BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel) a priority” if she wins. She is indeed likely to, considering Saban alone contributed $7.5 million to her campaign. If only some Arab and Muslim donors had done the same, they would have bought into some of this precious clout in the years ahead. For there are credible fears that Hillary may prove to be the most pro-Israel president the US has ever had. No wonder this election increasingly feels like being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. The writer is a Gulf-based author and columnist.
