The Final Debate & Why Putin Might Actually Prefer Clinton


111588758-Trump-Clinton-end-reuters-large_trans++U2OcGw4mv9yCz78okQSYvkFll0U5K3E4UGSPK5BqSVY.jpg

The rise of Donald Trump is reminiscent in a lot of ways of Adolf Hitler.

This correlation has been perhaps run dry and overplayed by the media, but there is a deeper ring to it than just the hateful rhetoric and outright evil policy ambitions these two have in common.

Besides Hitler’s ideological madness, beneath it all, was a political man seeking his own ends. Hitler was not just a Nazi – he was a politician. This often meant betraying his own, fellow “Nazis”.

Hitler also betrayed the Soviets once he realized he could. But its important to remember that he was also their ally for some time – the “communists” – the alleged Jewish arch-enemies of Nazism – until that is, he found no more need for such an alliance.

This erratic behavior is consistent with Donald Trump who – perhaps now finds it convenient to rally his followers behind an anti-globalist and pro-fascist tirades  – but soon this might shift as trends do. In other words, Trump is fickle to his own agenda. He doesn’t have one. It is – whatever keeps him in power – in front of the cameras – and his party and entourage behind him. He exercises this privilege because the US is the world’s superpower. It can afford such lunacy. Most other countries that entertain such blatant flamboyant theatrics in politics are third world tyrannies…(North Korea).

The third world dictatorial hitlerian like conspiratorial narrative echoed by Trump and his followers resonates with them because for every troubled soul – blaming society or others is the remedy – and it appears now there are many troubled…white protestant male souls. Sure – there are many injustices in the world – but there is no need to reduce them to YouTube like conspiracy theories – we can address them coherently without diluting them with unscientific conjecture.

Trump’s weakest point in the debate came at two moments – first was his rejection of American norm of democracy. Second was his inability to more tacitly answer questions about his foreign relations with Russia. Whether true or not, his display of incompetence almost made him look guilty. His rejection of the election results not only drew gasps from the crowd – it echoed across the living rooms of Americans nationwide. How could he insult us this way? How could the Republican Party enable him? This is outright betrayal and to be frank – I am fully emphatic of Hillary Clinton when she displays her complete intolerance and outrage at Trump’s complete and utter disrespect of America, and for everything which it stands.

Ultimately the Russians are looking for someone who is willing to fight terrorism and stay out of their sphere of influence. While rhetoric seems contrary, Hillary is much less likely to flirt with the idea of WWIII with Russia then perhaps Donald Trump if the latter determines that he or his cohorts may have interests in such a war – get my drift? I believe much of what Hillary (and all Democrats) are forced to exhibit is a sense of ultranationalism so as to counter the right-wing paranoia encouraged by the GOP and emblazoned across the mainstream media. But in reality, Democrats (and Clinton would follow suit) are less hawkish, relative to the GOP. Compare Obama to Bush, Clinton (Bill) to Bush Sr., JFK to Nixon…The Democratic creed is one of tolerance, diversity, equality, democracy, freedom, opportunity and justice – even when such may be less profitable for the individual. On the contrary, the GOP’s ideal often compromises the collective good for the sake of an individual profit. This is not capitalism – this is abuse of power. The Democrats are a force for freedom and dignity in America; and for unity globally. What needs to be acknowledged however among Democrats is that neither democracy nor justice nor political development can be achieved in foreign countries through interventionism – perhaps Bernie Sanders can rub off on the rest of them.

Democrats are more inclined towards cooperation with foreign countries. For this reason, despite the theatrics displayed in the election, it might be arguable that the Russians might prefer a President Clinton over Trump. Trump is exploiting Russia’s uneasy relations with the US for his own gain – something which might (and most likely will) change sporadically. Clinton is consistent – and also values reconciliation as evidenced by the Nuclear Deal with Iran which she basically initiated and oversaw. Clinton’s experience, and her humility, is likely to characterize her as more suitable for the position of President of the world’s sole superpower – a position which affects not just Americans, but citizens of the world.

Advertisements

Is the U.S. in Decline?


America-Flag-e1457016691767.png

The U.S. is arguably in a position it hasn’t been in before. This all happened after WWII. While American isolationism officially ended during the Spanish-American War, WWII marked a new era in American foreign policy – interventionism. After the Civil War, the US faced little domestic threats, and foreign threats were all but inexistent prior to the twentieth century. Somehow strangely, as the US became more entangled in foreign affairs, contrary to the warnings of its founders, so too, did America’s national security come more into question. The end of the Cold War, and the demise of the Soviet bloc, produced a new world order marked by US hegemony – a unipolar world. Up until this point, the US was largely focused on containing the USSR – this was largely an external threat. But the emergence of Islamic terrorism transformed an international issue into a national security dilemma for the US. But the US never went directly to war with the USSR, whereas it has embarked on military campaigns against Islamic radicals. On the contrary, the US hoped for the USSR to collapse from within, without direct confrontation. Perhaps this is why it dissolved. But the new security threat of Islamic terrorism has been approached directly, as with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and now Syria. The US’ national security is more than ever threatened today. Do America’s post-WWII policy of interventionism and the emerging threat to its national security, evidenced by the rise of Islamic terror groups, coincide?

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the emergence of BRICS, Russia’s assertiveness in the Ukraine and Georgia, the economic crisis and the US’ increased military campaigns are arguably signs of a change in the “world order” (Schweller et al 2011). Perhaps it is too early to suggest that the US is in decline, considering its immense military might and wealth, but there is reason to believe that, since WWII, it has grown increasingly insecure. The military and economic growth of countries like Japan and China as well as the EU are further signs of relative decline (Huntington 1988). It isn’t absolute because the US remains the world’s super power by a long margin – but the growth rate of its competitors has surpassed its own. Based on its history, could it be argued that the US was militarily and economically most secure when its foreign policy was less characterized by interventionism?

 

Huntington, S. P. 1988. The US—Decline or Renewal?. Foreign affairs, 67(2): 76-96.

Schweller, Randall L., and Xiaoyu Pu. “After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of US Decline.” International Security 36(1): 41-72.

Thoughts on Democratic Debates


We need more minority representation. The democrats were looking like the Whigs from the UK. I wonder what percentage of financially struggling Americans are non-white. How would this make democrats look? Where are our multi-ethnic representatives? We need leaders who understand and connect with struggling Americans not privileged white girls in gentrified Williamsburg. I still prefer democrats because they don’t use hateful rhetoric and are more professional – republicans are nouveau riche, and are literally uneducated in the fields of economics and policy. Hillary Clinton sounds like a corporate pawn and a closet republican. Sanders is a populist-fanatic who tweets jigglypuff policies on the regular – seemingly disconnected from political reality especially abroad. Sanders is naive. Clinton is a tool. We need another Obama. Sure, the man isn’t perfect, but he’s done enough to prove he isn’t in the pockets of corporate America entirely; especially in his handling of foreign policy. We need more candidates to rise from different backgrounds. This is what the Democratic Party is all about. A diverse America of equal opportunity; not this Disneyland fairytale of a veil used by democrats and republicans alike to hide the political realities ailing America; racism, xenophobia, prison and military complex, and institutionalized disenfranchisement – to name just a few.

Should I even other mentioning the other guys (contenders)? What were their names again?

Sorry to be harsh – this is politics.