Saturday, April 9, 2016
America is in trouble. Her population, bitterly divided by a growing gulf of increasingly mad ideologies, hovers on the brink of mass violence. Her economy, looted by robber-baron bankers and bailout-happy politicians, threatens to implode. And her leadership is hell-bent on provoking Russia and triggering World War III. The race for America's throne in 2016, unlike previous recent elections, actually offers candidates that significantly differ from one another (most recent elections have given us a choice between fascist warmongers speaking different rhetoric but offering the same excrement sandwich of death and economic ruin).
Hillary: probably the worst-case scenario. The most bloodthirsty and unprincipled of the main contenders for the throne, responsible with Barack Obama for the current rise of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and now Europe. High risk of destroying the world.
Bernie: a man with no proven ability to understand economics (or even arithmetic) wants to drastically overhaul the US economy. What would possibly go wrong? Bonus: he's not genuinely anti-war (he votes with the warmongers most of the time despite posing as a peacenik). High risk of destroying the US economy and moderate risk of destroying the world.
Cruz: while not completely without a libertarian impulse, he has proven to be quite a nasty fellow. In all likelihood, he is an agent for the neoconservatives who ruled from 2000-2008 and still appear to wield a strong influence. High risk of inciting liberal unrest and moderate-to-high risk of destroying the world.
Trump: brash, divisive, egotistical, at least a little unscrupulous, and not exactly a libertarian. However, he shows the least chance of the major candidates of destroying the US economy. And, as the only candidate with an authentic anti-war credential and the only one indicating a desire to get along with Vladimir Putin, he should be the least offensive candidate to genuine lovers of peace. High risk of violent liberal unrest and moderate to low risk of destroying the world.
The various third parties and independent actors will probably offer a few candidates who are far superior in ideology and integrity than this frightening slate — but none of these fine candidates stand a chance of making a dent. Of the major candidates, from the point of view of minimizing the destruction of the US war machine and allowing the working class to survive, there is only one acceptable option. Even as divisive and hated as this candidate is — and even though the election of this person all but guarantees massive domestic civil unrest—the first priority of the conscientious voter must be to stand against war. Especially if that war is likely to be nuclear.
Write to me at "alan" + "@" + "zot.net".