A Realist's View Of The US Presidential Contest

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Eric Zuesse via Strategic-Culture.org,

Because the viewpoint expressed here will be a controversial one not frequently expressed or encountered, links are provided in order to enable the reader quickly to access the documentation wherever a particular allegation might seem to be dubious on the basis of false assertions that any particular reader might have read elsewhere; but, otherwise, the links that are provided here are intended to be simply ignored, especially because so many of the allegations here are highly contentious and therefore require providing ready access to the documentation (and because no reader should waste his time to read documentation at a linked item that the reader already believes to be true):

The rape-allegations that have been raised recently against Donald Trump, turned the US Presidential contest so drastically, that a Hillary Clinton victory now appears to be all but certain. Morning Consult headlined on October 18th“Donald Trump Has a Growing Problem With Men”, and reported: “Before the first debate, Trump led his Democratic counterpart, Hillary Clinton, by 8 points among men in a Morning Consult survey of likely voters. After the second debate and nine women making sexual assault allegations against Trump, those numbers have nearly flipped: Clinton now leads Trump among men by 6 points.”

That’s a 14% swing away from Trump, among half of the electorate, during a time-interval extending from 24 September to 15 October — 21 days — with only 22 days left until voting ends (hardly enough time to reverse that plunge and then to rise into the lead). Rape allegations couldn’t get Bill Clinton forced out of office, but they likely will force Hillary Clinton into office. Future historians might say that the biggest issue in the 2016 US Presidential contest was rape — more important to voters than the economy, the wars, the income-stagnation of the bottom 99%, trade-policy, criminal-justice reform, or any other public-policy issue. But, if this turns out to be so, then is America at all a functioning democracy? Might it instead be a sick society, whose values are so out-of-kilter, so plainly stupid, that it fits more the stereotype of a backward culture, than of a successful and forward-looking one?

Some of the issues that are actually at stake in this election — especially nuclear war — could quickly end all civilization as we know it; but the voters’ main issue seems instead to be rape. Does this reflect democracy, or rather a lack of democracy, or a manipulation of democracy? Should a personal crime, which isn’t a crime of government, actually be an issue in elective politics? Should it be an issue even if there has been no court-ruling and conviction in the case? And, if it should, then should it dominate an election, such as it is in 2016 America? If it should be an issue at all, then, given the enormous stakes in the current US election, it should be an extremely minor one, notwithstanding how repulsive any rapist is, but especially because there hasn’t even been legal process about any of the allegations, and because even a Presidential candidate who is publicly accused of a personal crime is supposed to be innocent until a court rules “guilty.”

Joachim Hagopian is correct to report, at Global Research, on October 18th, that, “The current threat level to every human life on this planet even surpasses the October Cuban Missile Crisis of 54 years ago as the earth today is in more peril by manmade [nuclear] destruction than any previous time in human history.” However, even if that outcome will fortunately be avoided, the sheer war-stakes in this Presidential election are enormous, and they appear to have little impact upon the voters, other than for them perhaps to fear placing a possible rapist (such as Bill Clinton also was) in charge of US (if not also of other nations’) national security.

Micah Zenko, of the overwhelmingly pro-Hillary-Clinton, neoconservative (pro-invasion)Council on Foreign Relations, headlined, on 29 July 2016, in the neoconservative Foreign Policy magazine (which denies that it’s neoconservative but cannot cite even a single article that it has published attacking neoconservatism), “Hillary the Hawk: A History”, and he documented that, “She has consistently endorsed starting new wars and expanding others.” He closed by saying: “Those who vote for her should know that she will approach such crises with a long track record of being generally supportive of initiating US military interventions and expanding them.”

I have independently reviewed her performance as the US Secretary of State, and have found nothing in her record that would contradict Zenko’s statement (other than his single false word there, ‘generally’), though I wrote clearly as a warning, and not merely (like Zenko did), to describe what her policies have been; I have (on many and diverse occasions) explicitly condemned those invasions as violations not only against the victim-nations but against the American public, whom the US Secretary of State is supposed to represent. International aggression does not represent the interests of the American public. If she becomes America’s President, then clearly there will be war, lots of it.

Hillary Clinton not only ardently championed George W. Bush’s kicking the U.N.’s weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 so that we could invade, but as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration led in every aggressive policy, and her protégés in the State Department after she left, such as Victoria Nuland, oversaw the carrying-out of those acts of aggression, and her former boss President Obama even sometimes overrode his new Secretary of State John Kerry (as Obama never did to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) and approved the aggressive policies of Hillary’s (now Kerry’s) underlings (which humiliated Kerry). Whereas Obama is a quiet neoconservative, Hillary is a loud and proud one. Her support of invading Iraq in 2003 was no ‘mistake’ or ‘aberration’ on her part; it reflected her fundamental orientation toward foreign policy. That’s what her voters will be voting for, if they are intelligent and accurately informed (as opposed to “voting for the first woman President” or other irrelevancies); because that’s what America and the world will importantly get if she becomes the next US President. (After all: Margaret Thatcher was also a woman; gender is irrelevant.) This is clear.

Donald Trump has no record in public office; and, up against Hillary Clinton’s demonstrated catastrophic record in public office, that lack of governmental experience alone constitutes a major reason to prefer him over her in this Presidential election. Whether he would start wars is unknown, but he has spoken forcefully of the need for the US to improve its relations with Russia. Hillary Clinton (like all other neoconservatives) criticizes him for that. (And the US ‘Defense’ industry has poured money into Hillary’s campaign but given almost nothing to Trump’s.

Perhaps the main reason why the main criticisms of Trump have concerned his private life, not his policy-record in public office, is because he has no policy-making record at all. The issues that have been raised in support of Hillary (since her positive achievements in public office have been virtually nil) have mainly focused on Trump’s personal affairs, and on his alleged acts of bigotry and even rape, because these are matters that distract voters from the real and urgent issues, which weigh so heavily and so substantially against her candidacy.

Rape has become the chief focus during the campaign’s closing days, because polls have indicated clearly that voters are more concerned about whether their President is a rapist than about whether he or she is a warmonger. Though they weren’t so concerned about such allegations when Bill Clinton was President, Trump’s often-crude speech makes such accusations against him far more credible than in Bill Clinton’s case — even though that ought not to be so.

No one except the women who have accused Bill Clinton and Donald Trump of rape can know, or can even think they know, whether a court would have convicted the alleged rapist if a court had been enabled to issue such a decision; but there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Hillary Clinton has been actively supporting the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US invasion of Libya in 2011, and is now supporting a far more aggressive US invasion of Syria (which would mean war against Russia) — supporting it consistently. She also has actively supported the 2009 coup in Honduras (which replaced the progressive democratically elected President there by a string of fascist tyrants and the world’s highest murder-rate), and the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014 (which was immediately followed by a break-up of the country and a plunge into depression and soaring debt).

Each one of these invasions and coups produced even worse conditions in the invaded or overthrown country afterward; but, only in the single case, of the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush, which subsequently became overwhelmingly condemned by the Democratic Party itself, did Hillary Clinton (with whatever sincerity an intelligent person can attribute to her, which is whatever the person thinks it to be) admit that she had made a ‘mistake’ on that one occasion. She doesn’t apologize for any of the other cases, because there is no such political requirement for her to do so. 

How many times does a high public official need to repeat essentially the same ‘mistake’ (actively as a public official pushing for horrific invasions), before the voters in that person’s political party (in this case, Democrats) come to recognize that they’ve been consistently lied-to by that person, and that they’ve been that politician’s suckers by voting for that catastrophically war-mongering person? After all, no sane voter wants America to go to war against Russia. But that’s the direction in which we’re currently heading. And Hillary Clinton wants to go farther there.

America’s Presidential choice will be either Hillary Clinton, a proven and repeated warmonger who has left a lengthy trail of death and destruction behind her as her blood-soaked clear and consistent record in public office (and Zenko made special note that “She also has developed close relations with retired military officers like Gen. Jack Keane, who has rarely seen a country that cannot be improved with US ground troops and airstrikes. As Bob Woodward wrote of a 2009 meeting between the two to discuss the Afghan surge: ‘Clinton greeted Keane with a bear hug, astonishing [US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard] Holbrooke because — and he should know — Hillary rarely bear-hugged anyone.” (Here is Jack Keane being praised by the prominent super-neocon Republican Paul Wolfowitz, who will vote for Hillary Clinton, against Donald Trump.)

Or else it will be a possible rapist, like her husband also was, who served two terms in the White House, but this time it would be a man of the opposite political party: Donald Trump. No matter how gross Mr. Trump is: he, unlike Hillary Clinton, cannot be intelligently evaluated by an abysmal record in public office, because he simply has no record at all in public office, nothing whatsoever; but he has only strings of public statements, most of which contradict each other. (As Zenko said: “Unlike Donald Trump, who has wildly shifting positions and alleged ‘secret’ plans to defeat the Islamic State, Clinton has an extensive track record upon which one can evaluate her likely positions.”) What Hillary Clinton’s public statements contradict is her actual record in public office, which is as far right-wing (pro-international-corporate), especially in foreign affairs and US trade policy (including NAFTA, TTIP, etc.) (and the common term for this in the military sphere is “neoconservative”), as any of her many financial backers on Wall Street could realistically hope for from any potential future US President — which is why she’s backed by almost all of America’s billionaires.

One of those two persons will be the next US President. Anyone else who alleges that he or she wants to be, and whose name will also appear on the Presidential ballot, is just a fake there, because, for example, Ralph Nader never ever won even so much as a single one of the 50 states in the Electoral College in any of his contests for the Presidency (not to mention a majority of all the EC votes, such as each of these spoilers lies, or lied, to claim to be his or her goal, but really just being a bad joke on that person’s voters). Nor will any of the current aspiring Presidential spoilers win even a single state. 

It’s going to be either the possible rapist, or else the definite and serial warmonger. The next US President will be one of those two people. On the one side is, maybe, a rapist. On the other side is certainly a warmonger.

Each voter must make his/her own choice: either drink possibly cyanide, or drink definitely arsenic. Those are the only two choices left in America’s ‘democracy’, and neither of them was the top choice of the most Americans during the primaries-season: the top choice was Bernie Sanders, and the second choice was John Kasich. In a truly democratic system, those two would be the final contestants. 

Each and every American voter in this existing contest will either select and drink his/her cup, or else simply allow all the other US voters in this contest collectively to select the cup that he/she and all other Americans will then be drinking during the next four years.

That’s a realistic view of this contest. But this is only one person’s analysis. Anyone who finds fault in it, is welcomed to provide and document a counter-argument below, as a reader-comment, or anywhere else this commentary is published.

Meanwhile, here is my answer to a person who, in a prior reader-comment, said that I am trying to ‘herd’ America’s voters into one or the other of America’s rotten political parties: I voted for Bernie Sanders, but I’m no such fool as to think that anyone like that still has a chance to win the US Presidency in 2016. I didn’t do the ‘herd’ing here; the US political system does it, when the political primary season ends and the general-election contest starts. If Jill Stein had wanted to reform the Democratic Party, she missed her chance to do that when she failed even to enter the Democratic primaries.

And, unlike the Whig Party, which had already become so widely rejected by the electorate by the time of 1860, so that a former Whig, Abraham Lincoln, was able virtually to start its successor, the Republican Party in 1860 (which got shot dead and taken over by the aristocracy when he was shot dead, in 1865), America’s voters haven’t yet reached the point where they’re willing to replace the Democratic Party with the Green Party or any other (much less to protect it if yet another assassination kills the progressive replacement-party like Lincoln’s Republican Party was). No matter what any third-party proponent might say, there’s no chance that 2016 is going to be some repeat of 1860. America is, and (like any nation that has a Presidential system) can only be, a two-party political system. The Founders didn’t know that, but we’ve now got hundreds of years all proving it to be so.

I mention that particular objection because it’s the one I most commonly have gotten in the past.

One final observation here: The reality of politics and governmental policymaking is incredibly ugly, and anyone who makes voting decisions on the basis of a politician’s mere private and personal life is a fool, because public policy really is, in the deepest sense, a very different and vastly more consequential and important moral sphere, having shockingly little to do with the person’s private behavior. The only intelligent way to judge any candidate is by that person’s past record of actual policy-decisions in public office, not at all by either the person’s mere words, or his private life (such as described in this example).

Even for Abraham Lincoln, who (along with FDR) is considered by historians to have been the greatest President, only his actions on policy made him that, and even his greatness as a rhetorician possesses relevance for historians only insofar as it was a part of that policy-record. Furthermore: both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned and ordered slaves, but neither man was a lesser President for having done that (even if historians do debate whether such Presidents were lesser persons for having done it).

To evaluate a politician by either his personal life or his mere rhetoric is not only foolish but petty. History proves this on thousands, if not millions, of occasions. Policy-actions are the only factor that’s important when evaluating a politician. It has been true throughout human history. A politician who has no record of policy-actions is thus a zero (like a mere coin-flip: presuming one side to be positive, the other negative); a politician who has a bad policy-record is thus a negative, and a politician who (like Bernie Sanders) has a positive policy-record is thus a positive. No intelligent estimation of America’s immediate political future can be positive; it’s either zero (like Trump) or else negative (like Hillary). That’s where we are (somewhere between zero and negative), and that’s the real choice we’ve been presented: either it’s Trump (zero), or else it’s Hillary (negative). I, a Sanders-voter, am choosing Trump, in preference to Clinton.

*  *  *

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Elco the Constitutionalist's picture

Fuck off with your false equivalency subversion.

erkme73's picture

Ok, so am I the only one who is coming to ZH much more frequently (even hitting F5 repeatedly) in hopes of getting the latest popcorn-requiring dirt on the election?  I think I'm getting addicted!

Bryan's picture

It's the best Presidential Reality Show I've ever seen on TV!  It's amazingly realistic too!  When do we get to vote one of them off the island?

toro's picture

"The rape-allegations that have been raised recently against Donald Trump"

Should it surprise anyone that the Donald might be a sexual deviant. http://bit.ly/1sPfpWk

yippee kiyay's picture

He looks like Clinton anyway. Except for that wild hair.

The Saint's picture

What?  Hillary looks like she takes a 50 lb. can of pig lard and slams her face into it before debates or other appearances in an effort to look less wrinkled.  Then she throws on some all purpose flour to take the shine off.  And lastly, she takes a bite out of a fresh, still beating human heart just to get a little red on her lips.

 

nmewn's picture

lol...now wait a minute...the lecherous & creepy Uncle Joe (the 2nd man in-line-to-pull-the-nuclear-trigger) didn't just say he wishes they were in high school again so he could just kick his ass out behind the gym did he?

So much for temperament and I really think Trump would beat the living shit out of him for pawing & smooching all over the women & girls he comes in contact with ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy07yHAgM4E

radio man's picture

So, what do I set the oven at?

Long-John-Silver's picture

So, what do I set the oven at?

Cremation

radio man's picture

So, what do I set the oven at?

Paul Kersey's picture

Some questions they didn't ask Hillary during the debates:

Why did you and your husband pay Paula Jones $850,000, if he was innocent?

Since you were "broke", where did the money come from?

Why did Abe Hirschfeld, the New York "businessman" who in September 1987, launched an unsuccessful campaign in Miami Beach to draft Donald Trump for president, and in 2000, was sentenced to three years in prison for trying to hire a hit man to kill his former business partner, Stanley Stahl, with whom he had a "survivor take all" business partnership, offer your husband $1,000,000 to settle the Paula Jones Suit?

AVmaster's picture

Back in the early 90's I wanted to bone hillary so much. And when bill was caught with monica, I was like "YES! Here's my chance to swoop in and make the kill"

 

I was such a retard in my 30's....

Paul Kersey's picture

"Back in the early 90's I wanted to bone hillary so much."

No one has ever said that before, and that includes Bill. So AVmaster, when will you be returning to your planet?

J S Bach's picture

Yeah.  Let's heed the advice of a card-carrying communist supporter.  Anyone who backs such a person (Sanders) or his Marxist philosophy shouldn't be trusted with giving a weather forecast - let alone why we should vote for whomever.  However, I do agree with his final choice (for other reasons not written).

sleigher's picture

Gross.   Dude it is Saturday morning.  wtf!

Creepy Lurker's picture

I've always held to the theory that theres someone for everyone, and thus, someone somewhere thinks Uncle Fester is a babe. That guy just proved my point.

ZRizzo's picture

Two dumb candidates for a dumbed down citizenry.   The theft show must go on!

thebigunit's picture

When you can't tell the difference between two things, does that make you smarter than the rest of us or dumber?

Two dumb candidates for a dumbed down citizenry.

Willard J Clinton's picture

"Member for 3 weeks 10 hours"

Exactly the same as the previous post from douchebag PIAPS supporter "toro"!

What a coincidence!

philipat's picture

Hey toro, previously mofio then santafe then Aristotle of Greece then Gargoyle then bleu then oops then lance-a-lot then most recently Loftie. Looks like Loftie got banned or just outed. I shall miss him! Let’s see how long toro survives, shall we?

You are a serial spammer and a serial pain in the ass. Might I politely suggest that you go fuck yourself? And get a life.

PS. You might have noticed that my attempt to expose you for what you are is always the same. That’s because your Spam is always the same (Using fake links to your BS site which has no connection to your comments; which are deliberately dramatic to mislead people into responding or clicking on the fake link) so it seems only fair that my exposure of your crap should also always be the same. An eye for an eye.

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

Fuck you Toro, and the sodomized donkey you rode in on. A sexual deviant does not get the unending admiration from those closest to him. It just doesn't happen. Those closest to you know you best, some better than you know yourself. All you need for proof of that are the stories coming out of Hillary's own camp. So spare us that whole "should it surprise anyone" horseshit.

By the way, what's a Hillary shill's pay these days?

GreatUncle's picture

Trump alleged sexual deviant allegation, WJC proven sexual deviant allegation.

 

stocker84's picture

Your biological father wasn't even the same species as your mother... Nobody threw either of them under the bus.

 

Willard J Clinton's picture

"Member for 3 weeks 10 hours"

Exactly the same as the next post from douchebag PIAPS supporter "Yippie kiyay"!

What a coincidence!

MASTER OF UNIVERSE's picture

The biblical exhortation to 'go forth a multiply' may have been a suitable exhortation to deliver to the ignorant masses back after the Second World War, but in an age of diminishing returns and overpopulation it is a recipe for mass starvation on a massive scale. Would you advise the people of Venezuela to 'go forth and multiply' when they cannot even find food to feed people that are starving to death? Would you advise the ignorant masses in America to 'go forth and multiply' when they spend more than half of their income on rent? Would you advise the millions of Americans that are unemployed to 'go forth and multiply'? Clearly, the exhortation to 'go forth and multiply' is a pyramid scheme that the Roman Catholic Church has utilized for centuries to enrich the coffers of the Vatican Bank at a cost to the millions of people that they have appropriated money from so that the Roman Catholic priests could pay lawyers fees for buggering alter boys up the wazzoo instead of remaining chaste & celibate as the God-damned Bible exhorts them to.

 

Get a grip, eh.

Kayman's picture

Toro

Another Dirty Noxious Criminals party troll.  Should it surprise anyone that you can wash your hands for 5  minutes and still can't get the slime off ?  Proof positive that you are trolling for HilLiary and the DNC.

Dancing Disraeli's picture

Should it be any surprise that you'e been here 3 weeks? 

Mr. Universe's picture

I'm sorry but the author of this article is full of it. What a bunch of drivel. Lincoln a great president? Ha.

Bollixed's picture

The author of this article who maybe, is a retard, has no clue what he is talking about.

TeamDepends's picture

Yeah Weekend Tyler, you should at least skim these before posting. "....then is America even a functioning democracy?". No douchewad, we are a crumbling Republic.

zhandax's picture

Eric needs a scorecard. Grope goes to red, rape goes to blue.

Omen IV's picture

  Mr. Zuesse, if you are to be taken seriously, you should spend your energy making your arguement to Bernie Sanders whom you supported and tell him to reverse his position in the interest of being  -  A Profile in Courage  - and have Sanders endorse Trump on live TV immediately !!!

 

He would be remembered for 100 years!

DeadFred's picture

He would announce it on CNN and his connection would mysterious fail. "Sorry folks about these technical difficulties, we'll try to get him back on line"

Ragnor789's picture

Lincoln wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa. But then he was killed....

Transformer's picture

This whole article is BS. 

Recent "poll" in Arizona, heralded by CNN, Hillary ahead by 5%...

This poll shows they polled 713 people,

413 Democrats

168 Republicans

132 Ind

And Hillary is only leading by 5%?

If you look at the data behind practically all the polls, they are like this.  BS.

monk27's picture

What's really interesting is that they managed to find 413 democrats in a state like Arizona...

Pure Evil's picture

Those were just the border crossers fresh off the boat from Central America.

Si, si, viva la Hillary.

The Iconoclast's picture

Is this to dispirit Trump voters or in preparation for stealing the election?

lakecity55's picture

We vote Cuntus Mortis off as soon as we have enough sharks surrounding the island!

Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

this article sums it up so nicely: If politically correct people are supposedly 'Humanists' then on Clintons record (of war, which unleashes massive amounts of rape on women populations)  then even Trumps evidently patriarchal approach to women still renders him a better candidate from a Humanist perspective. But politically correct people are twisted, fucked up humanists - they cherry pick certain Humanist aspirations and pursue them with zealotry to the detriment of the wider humanist cause

ITS TIME TO CHOOSE: YOU CAN BE A HUMANIST, OR YOU CAN BE POLITICALLY CORRECT. you cant be motherfuckin BOTH

Future Jim's picture

A conservative Mormon and former CIA operative, and his female Jewish running mate, are on the ballot in Utah and several other states. Is there any chance at all that this is not a plot to help Hillary? They are polling 20% in Utah.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/21/mcmullin-surging-in-utah-indy-candidates-plan-for-electoral-college-chaos.html

 

PrayingMantis's picture

 

 

... and of course, suckherbird's fecesbook is trying to help the lyin' queen hiliary >>> "Report: Facebook Employees Wanted to Censor ‘Hate Speech’ from Trump, ‘Threatened to Quit’" ... >>> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/10/21/report-facebook-employees-wanted-to-censor-hate-speech-from-trump-threatened-to-quit/ 

 

 

any_mouse's picture

"former" CIA. Right.

Still CIA.

MalteseFalcon's picture

If Trump gets the most electoral votes, I would not want to be a congressman or Senator who denies him the Presidency.

Mitt Romney's political career is over, BTW.

Future Jim's picture

You're the only one talking about Mitt Romney.

MalteseFalcon's picture

Outside of a tiny, butt sore neocon clique in UT, that's probably true.

lakecity55's picture

Thankfully, the other Mormon Shill, G Beck, is also over.

TeamDepends's picture

Sounds like a joke: A conservative Mormon and former CIA operative, his female Jewish running mate, two Muslims and a goat walk into a bar....
So yes, it is probably some evil plot to assist Satan's handmaiden Hillary.