[Photo by Jim’ll Paint It]
Joshua Tartakovsky, 12 August 2016
I have great concern for the people of the world. Not just for people of my country, the United States. But also for the people of Brazil, who don’t, I believe, deserve an illegal and unconstitutional impeachment of their president. I am concerned about the people of Syria who are under attack by the murderous actions of ISIS and worried about their fate. (If President Assad is toppled, it is not wild to assume that Syria will become an al Qaeda haven as Libya. Terrorism will then spread to Israel and Turkey.) I am concerned about the people of Donetsk in East Ukraine who have been facing cluster bombs since they chose to secede from Ukraine. I am concerned about Israelis and Palestinians alike whose lives are being sacrificed for the US military-industrial complex.
For all these reasons, I expressed in the past a nuanced perspective on why Americans should vote for Donald Trump from ananti-imperialist perspective and posed seven questions for Trump haters. My argument, in short, is that I don’t believe that Hillary has any genuine intention to truly help the American middle class. That she is beholden to corporations and toGoldman Sachs. That she will carry out more wars abroad including a very realistic possibility of a world war with China and Russia. Bernie Sanders never got a fair chance in the so-called Democratic Party. Her record, the destruction of Libya, handing over weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenal to jihadist rebels in Syria, making concessions to Iran despite the fact that it calls for the destruction of Israel, and supporting an unpopular change of government in Honduras that subsequently engaged in the murder of indigenous female activists, is not too promising for the future. Trump may have proposed to limit migration but he has not called for the toppling of Assad or for more wars abroad for the sake of ‘regime change’. Even if his unpredictable character would have resulted in him turning 180 degrees after his election and moving from his policy of isolation to hotheaded war mongering, I do not believe that the people of the US or Europe would allow him to carry out his plans with the same level of support they would have offered Hillary. The US military-industrial complex is in constant need for wars. If Trump is Bush II, at least Trump would not be able to carry out his plans while Hillary will be able to. And Trump, unlike Hillary, proposed bringing back US corporations home and bringing back jobs. And with all due respect to Americans who are concerned about “fascism” in the US, for most of the world the US government has already been engaged in countless wars and massacres. If the beast is exposed for what it is, let it be so.
But recently I came to realize that Trump is a clown. That he may be impulsive and say hateful things was fine. After all, he may say many hateful things but he didn’t destroy entire countries as Hillary and people need to say things to get elected, although he followed the worse European traditions. But what doesn’t make sense is how Trump is shooting himself in the foot. It’s as if he is trying, intentionally, consciously, to jeopardize his own election.
It’s understandable that Trump had to be a populist to win the Republican nomination. But now that he did, he didn’t bother to appoint a Latino vice president, or at the very least reach out to the Latino community. He mocked the parents of a deceased Muslim American soldier who was killed in Iraq, therefore crossing a redline and moving to what is ostensibly bad taste. He mentioned the Second Amendment in relation to Hillary with the hint rather clear. He went on to say that Hillary and Obama created ISIS, which actually can be even convincingly argued with some evidence even if one cannot convincingly proof there was an intent there, and then Trump explained he was “sarcastic.” Well, excuse us Donald Trump if we don’t get your sarcasm, but maybe take your position as a leading candidate a little bit seriously? Just a tiny bit?
Trump’s behavior indicates not only that he is a narcissist. That we knew already. But that he that arrogant that he takes himself very seriously and spews whatever comes out of his mouth without any kind of reflection on the consequences or he is actually intentionally sabotaging his own election. Either way, it’s not the behavior of one who really wishes to get elected. If getting elected was important to him, he would not mock the parents of an American soldier who died in combat. He would not say that Obama created ISIS one day and then claim he is sarcastic in the next.
Since Trump himself is showing no serious desire to get elected, it is not only obvious that he will never get elected but also that if he will somehow get elected, the power structures will simply not allow it based on whatever pretext that can be arranged.
This brings us to the question: Is Hillary’s election such a bad thing? Surely, for Syrians, Hillary’s election is worrying, as she will probably seek to empower terrorists in Syria and remove Assad. Their country will go down the drain. But any marxist reading of the current crisis we are in (and by now means am I a pure materialist, I also take into account culture and spirit), inevitably understands that US cannot but go to war due to its enormous debt and economic crisis. And any realistic reading understands that a liberal cloak of warmongering, greed and selfishness is the zeitgeist of our time and that Hillary is its most appropriate manifestation. In other words, let things carry out to their logical conclusions and let people learn the way they wish to learn. Furthermore, Americans can never be satisfied with Trump’s method of job creation as companies are moving to automation and people are getting fired. Trump, if elected, can provide at best a year or two of respite before the war drums beat again, but he has shown he has no real desire to get elected. Americans can never be satisfied with Trump for the long run any more than ethnic Germans inside and outside Germany were satisfied with Hitler after June 22, 1941.
But with the US deep in crisis, the incredible popularity of Bernie Sanders despite its hijacking, indicates that something positive will come of our current ordeal. And her name is Jill Stein.
Jill Stein of the Green Party offers genuine solutions to the social, economic, environmental and political disasters we face. She also offers a foreign policy that will be more benign (although I disagree on some points). More significantly, voting for Jill Stein would mean that we we Americans will not settle for the lesser evil and will not recognize Hillary’s candidacy as the legitimate voice of our aspirations after the various cases of probable fraud that took place to enable her nomination. We can do better than that. We had enough of settling for the lesser evil. Trump has no genuine desire to win and Hillary is a corporate war-monger. But at the very least what we can do is force our way through the door and create a third party in the United States therefore allowing a genuine democratic debate to take place and make our way to appeal to a growing number of Americans on a new way out of the mess we are in.
Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party offers thoughtful solutions than the two bizarre creatures we have competing at the top from a nation of 290 million people. The libertarian ideals run deep in the American spirit and can ensure we have a vibrant economy without government intervention, greater freedom, and an end to the senseless wars abroad.
It’s not about winning the presidency now but about creating a genuine democracy for the future, as the Wall Street Journal explained. A vote for a third party will require federal funding for a third party and will open up a genuine possibility of new leaders with new ideas taking hold in 2020. But for that to happen, either Johnson or Stein would need to receive more than 5% of the vote.
The United States is great because it’s a nation of choice. Why must we have two lame choices for presidency?