Both the Left and the Right think that Donald Trump is disliked by the rightwing establishment. That contention may be true, but it’s problematic.
An excerpt from Jonathan Cook’s above linked-to article follows:
———– — –
Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money — and big money only — Clinton’s supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the “lesser evil” argument. Clinton may be bad, but Trump would be far worse. Voting for a non-evil candidate like Jill Stein — who has no hope of winning — would split the progressive camp and ensure Trump, the more evil candidate, triumphs. Therefore, there is a moral obligation on progressive voters to back Clinton, however bad her track record as a senator and as secretary of state.
There is nothing new about this argument. It has been around for decades, and has been corralling progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have consistently advanced US neoconservative policy goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home.
– — ———–
My partial online response to the above linked-to article follows, which is to say that online you’ll see part of the below response. Below is the response I would have posted online were I allowed to. The stinky OpEd site disallows full online participation until you donate sufficiently:
============== == =
“Again, the Washington policy elites may force him to engage abroad in ways he would prefer not to, but his instincts to limit the projection of US military power on the international stage are likely to be an overall good for the world’s population outside the US. Any diminishment of US imperialism is going to have real practical benefits for billions of people around the globe. His refusal to demonize Vladimir Putin, for example, may be significant enough…”
Instincts? Is that what you call it when someone possess a serious fickleness? Trump’s vision, as far as I can tell, is to satisfy his ego, at any cost. Hide if he wins the election. Also, Hide if Clinton wins the election.
The fact is, We are confronted with the rise of fascism globally. Leaders, like Trump, all over the globe are whipping up nationalism and ideas about racial purity. Where that kind of leadership has been successful, you have ended up with peoples who are primed for violence and war, exactly what neoconservatism views as necessary, to the point, as Shadia Drury points out, where, if a nation doesn’t have external enemies to war with, then one or more should be created. (the lawless crazies in Washington think it will be cool to war with Russia.) The military intelligence industrial complex could only be pleased with the political successes of neocons and fascists, like Trump, who, if empowered and free to do so, will create the conditions for profitability for those who have self-modified themselves, as we are free to do (but not without consequences) from being believers in the golden rule to being believers in inequality who play a Darwinian game of ‘riches for the strongest’, so well expressed in the social economic system of neoliberalism and the philosophy of neoconservatism.
So tell me again how the establishment is ‘against’ this rep of the new rich. How is it that Trump would be problematic for the miic, or war-loving Pentagon or those behemoth transnationals whom Thomas Friedman is so happy to see protected by US military muscle (http://nyti.ms/1oxGkN7).
= == ==============