Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
In United States politics, what worked like a charm for decades, especially with the fake left, was the lesser-of-two-evils argument. Not a vote for someone, but a vote against someone else. Once again it is at play in the 2016 election cycle, but with many new and unexpected twists. When trying to convince his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton while holding their noses in revulsion, fake-socialist Bernie Sanders is playing by the book and docilely following a script written for him by the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee (DNC). No surprise there, with the anyone-but-Trump argument. By serving his Clinton masters well, instead of running as an independent, Sanders has committed political suicide, and he has discredited himself from ever leading or being part of a real US leftist party.
The options given to the US voters are so dreadful in this election that the lesser-of-two-evils rationale is not that useful anymore. When democracy is dead, it is hard to decide which corpse is less putrid. The question in this diabolic equation should be: which of the two evils will be more resolutely insane to lead World War III? Is it the zombie with 16 years in the corridors of power and a proven track record of blood and mayhem, or the clown backed by Christian fundamentalists and an entourage of shifty handlers? Hillary Clinton is the devil that American voters know. Perhaps ultimately, in a protest vote against a hated political establishment, they will roll the dice and make the quantum leap to vote for the devil they don’t know: aka Donald Trump.
As early as September 2015, I compared the US presidential election to a scripted television reality show set up to give people the sense that the electoral process is real. The premise of the script, illustrated by Dady Chery and me in “Imperial Elections,” was that it was Hillary’s turn to win. Today I still maintain that several characters were cast in this charade: mainly the likable leftist grandfather, Bernie, who would run on the themes of Occupy but graciously not only concede the initial fight but also champion the causes of the Empress after losing a battle he never really fought; and of course, Donald Trump would be cast as the bad guy, the quintessential ugly American. He would be a scarecrow so lifelike and so repulsive about race and gender that voters would flock to someone as unlikable as Hillary Clinton. While Bernie and Hillary were obedient actors in this play, at some point Trump went off script. Some forces in the background of US politics, which could soon be in conflict, realized that the unthinkable could happen, that the reality show could become real and Donald Trump might win.
In this election cycle, most forms of what passes for conventional political wisdom have been turned upside down. The selection of the next figurehead of the Orwellian empire has become Kafkaesque. Case in point: in March 2016, Donald Trump was categorized by many on the left as a racist anti-Muslim endorsed by the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) and European far-right personalities like France’s Jean-Marie LePen of the Front National. Fast-forward to September 2016, however, and African-American leader of Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, endorses Donald Trump. Many voices on the real left, with our own Dady Chery in the lead, have expressed the never-Hillary or anyone-but-Hillary argument for years. At this point, the critical African-American vote and the so-called progressive vote have become elusive, and they will certainly not be reliable voting blocks for Clinton. As for Trump, he will likely benefit from the libertarian vote that might have gone to Gary Johnson before he became the “What’s Aleppo?” candidate.
On the Clinton side too, the anomalies are astounding. A week ago, Bush Sr., the don of the rival US political crime family, pledged his support to Hillary. Can anybody reconcile the blatant contradiction in the same candidate being supported by both Sanders and Bush Sr? That is, of course, unless you recognize the postulate that the US is a one-party system run by a handful of people who decide every four years who should read the White House teleprompter, and which clans and syndicates should benefit more from the loot they will get from the worldwide exploitation of people and resources. The establishment that has taken turns running the empire since 1980 likes the status quo. Barack Obama, run by the Clintons for eight years, perfectly suited their needs, but they dislike the unpredictability of unknowns like Donald Trump.
Some conservative political pundits wrongly refer to a potential Clinton election as an Obama third term. This is absurd and inaccurate, considering that Obama was surrounded and controlled from day one by a myriad of Clintonites. In reality, Obama’s first and second terms were the Clintons’ third and fourth terms. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is running for a fifth term, or a potential of 20 years of the Clintons in the oval office. Unlike most of the public opinion in Western Europe, brainwashed by their mainstream media, many US citizens cannot stand the prospect of the Clintons back in the White House. Hillary Clinton would probably win in a landslide if the US elections were worldwide, where her public relations campaign has successfully managed to associate her with the notion of competence and experience, and depicted Trump as a dangerous fascist and embarrassing incompetent. Lately, however, many questions have arisen in regard to Hillary Clinton’s state of health. Is she even fit to become the US Commander in Chief with access to the nuclear codes? What will happen if she becomes elected then unable even to read a teleprompter? Of course, officially, her vice president would step in, but Bill Clinton and his crew would run the show.
United States presidential elections always have an important impact on world affairs. Various countries are not only anxiously watching the outcome of elections 2016 but also trying to influence it thru various means and channels. The West, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel would welcome a Clinton election: the West, to maintain the global empire status quo; and the Saudis, Qataris and Israelis to get their plan of attacking Iran finally green-lit by Washington. Russia and China, while being a lot more cautious and not as invested, have made known in subtle ways the notion that they would rather deal with Trump, the devil they don’t know, rather than Hillary Clinton, a devil they know much too well.
It is hard to think of any positive outcome. No real important issues such as climate change, a reassessment of US foreign policy, the role of money in politics, the torture of political prisoners, and the excessive power of the US executive branch have been addressed. Donald Trump — if he remains anti-political establishment and doesn’t end up being run by the Bush clan through Karl Rove and company, or fall under the spell of Christian fundamentalists — could become a wrench in the wheels of the empire, a grain of sand in the business-as-usual scenario. Recently, the one and only Dady Chery told me on the record: “I would rather vote for the devil himself than for Hillary Clinton.” She added, “I am more likely to vote for Donald Duck.”
Editor’s Notes: Gilbert Mercier is the author of The Orwellian Empire. Caricatures one, four and five by Donkey Hotey, photograph two by Cam Miller; three, eight and nine by Gilbert Mercier; and six by Paulann Egelhoff.