FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

“Trump’s” Overwhelming Majority

There is an abundance of articles and media messages which are appearing regularly which tell us that assorted examples of arrogant, toxic, vicious policies and actions by this  administration are to be classified as “Trump’s” this or “Trump’s” that. Most of them which I have  run across are coming from people who consider themselves to be opposed to these policies  and actions. It always stands out to me like a piercing shriek of delusional thinking when it  occurs, especially if “Trump’s…” is part of the title of an article.

My distaste for this sort of delusional description of the behavior of this administration is  because it is a misleading message – a half-truth – if you will. Most of what Trump and Company  are implementing and/or expanding is in direct descent from the policies and actions of the preceding corporate worshiping administrations and congresses, whether they were democrat  or republican. It is also the same kind of rubbish which has been used to pretend that Obama and Bush were the singular creators of the scheming manipulations which they  helped sell and which were largely supported by majorities in congress.

The most deluded misrepresentations are coming from those who identify as democrats.

These are people who desperately sought to elect Hillary Clinton as a way of avoiding the obvious crudeness and the appeal to bigotry which were central to the Trump campaign.

What makes this delusional behavior so slimy is that much, if not most, of what is cited as  “Trump’s” abominable  behavior is almost exactly what could have been expected from  Hillary Clinton and Company. Her record of promoting vicious militarism, predatory  corporate malfeasance, and obstructing investigations have been central to most of her  career. Beyond this, both Trump and Clinton are hardly aberrations to the promoted policies and actions of their political parties. The main difference between the republicans and the democrats is the degree to and methods by which they claim they are opposed to what they actually have supported and helped implement for decades.

During the campaign (a singular event for democrats and republicans, despite their insisting that they are opposition parties) for president in 2016, as has been the case for  decades in the corporately sponsored pretense of political theater in the faking U$A, the voters were subjected to the impression that it was imperative that they limit their options to choosing between one blatant corporate fraud or another blatant corporate fraud.

Anything from outside of this insulated electric fence surrounding the corporate feedlot was  portrayed as either just not pragmatic or as ridiculously unrealistic. There was an air of  salivating corporate malfeasance which relished its own vain manipulative cynicism and the  corresponding desperate delusions of the vast majority of voters who swallowed the  media-fed gruel as if it was a source of insightful brain food. In all, that campaign has  proven to be a huge success by and for privatized corporate control of governance and  the singularly prominent  proof of their success in cynical debauchery is to be found in the obsessive reactionary delusion that “Trump’s” presidential-seal-of-approval offensiveness is not connected to what has transpired before or to what Hillary Clinton would have almost exactly also done. It now seems that the rude misogyny and ethnic  bigotry which Trump callously and indifferently distributes is the only real difference in how the republicans and democrats try to appeal to the voters. The Clintonians prefer not to be so blatant and they prefer to give the impression that they are ardently opposed  to such misogyny and racial bigotry while they support policies which depend upon an indifference to the use of racial bigotry and misogyny against other, more vulnerable citizens and nations in order to reinforce their shared devotion to liberating privatized corporate malfeasance from any responsibility for the detrimental social and environmental effects which are inherent in their scheming.

Arguably, the worst examples of manipulated dim-wittedness are the people who still  cling to Bernie Sanders after he betrayed his own supposed message and loudly pushed  his supporters to cling onto a candidate who was/is as much a version of  Dick Cheney in drag  as she is a friend to corporate malfeasance. There is no upside to either Hillary Clinton  or to Donald Trump because they are both agents of the same religion of private corporate domination and vanity. Sanders set people up by limiting the options to one version of corporate malfeasance or another version of the same agenda when he, early on in his supposed campaign, stated that he would support whoever the  democrats put forward as their candidate. Based upon his pledge to submit to the party choice, the democrats could have decided to promote Dick Cheney himself and Sanders would have again supported their candidate because he proudly honors his word when it  has to do with subservience to the party. In reality, there are few possible democrat  candidates who could be more Cheney-like than Hillary warmonger Clinton.

A prime example of the shared corruption is the smug indecency of the US attacking  Syria immediately after the US corporate control center AGAIN made another unsubstantiated  claim that the Syrian government had unleashed another gas attack on its own people. There  was no hesitating for proof of the accusation and the US quickly started another deadly attack.

The difference between the action taken under the smarmy egotism of Trump and what the smarmy egotist Hillary Clinton wanted to do was in the extent of the US attack. Clinton wanted  to do more attacks and she wanted to cripple the airports in Syria. In both scenarios –  what Trump achieved and what Clinton proposed – Syria would suffer and ISIS would benefit.

Another prominent example which shows that the democrats and republicans only vary in their preferred methods of or extent of their shared devotion to global corporate controls is the current attack on the so-called Affordable Care Act. The ACA was designed to stop the push for Single Payer healthcare. It followed in the decades old  pattern of gradually turning more and more of Medicare over to privately profiting corporate “supplemental” policies. It was designed to make sure that the private insurance industry was in some control of everyone’s access to healthcare. Early in 2016,  Hillary Clinton smugly boasted that single payer healthcare would, “Never, ever happen.”

Now, the ACA is under reinvigorated attack and the majority of its delusional supporters  seems to think that the attempt to crush the ACA is going to limit the possibility of ever  achieving single payer healthcare. The truth is that the ACA was a part of the shared democrat/republican manipulations to prevent single-payer from having any chance of  becoming reality. The difference between the democrat creators of the ACA and the republicans who are eager to destroy the ACA is their preferred method of eliminating  any chance for single payer. No healthcare will be allowed to get in the way of private profits from insurance sales by either the democrats or the republicans.

During the campaign of 2016, very consistently, the actions of Clinton and Trump   revealed that there were very few instances where the democrat’s choice was NOT an advantage to the republican’s choice and where the republican’s choice was not an advantage to the democrat’s choice. Their supposed opposition to each other was/is that they are two fronts of the same negative energy resisting each other through the power of the same shared negative, life-draining energy and there is no positive energy allowed to reduce the effects of their shared power. When Clinton and Trump dominated, the same force dominated.

The tens of millions who voted for either Clinton or Trump, that is to say approximately 98% of those who cast votes in 2016, are part of the system which encourages the corruption which so many are trying to put on Trump alone. Trump and his team seem to be highly effective in stimulating the outrage of the supporters of Clinton’s team while Clinton’s team ardently embraces the lie that their team is not owned and controlled by the same devotion to unrestrained, privatizing, predatory capitalism (of which Trump is a prominent example).

If you voted for Clinton or Trump, you need only look in the mirror when you feel outrage because neither Clinton nor Trump has failed to achieve their shared agenda.

More articles by:

Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
Robert Fantina
Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
Joseph Flatley
The Fascist Creep: How Conspiracy Theories and an Unhinged President Created an Anti-Semitic Terrorist
Joseph Natoli
Twitter: Fast Track to the Id
William Hawes
Baselines for Activism: Brecht’s Stance, the New Science, and Planting Seeds
Bob Wing
Toward Racial Justice and a Third Reconstruction
Ron Jacobs
Hunter S. Thompson: Chronicling the Republic’s Fall
Oscar Gonzalez
Stan Lee and a Barrio Kid
Jack Rasmus
Election 2018 and the Unraveling of America
Sam Pizzigati
The Democrats Won Big, But Will They Go Bold?
Yves Engler
Canada and Saudi Arabia: Friends or Enemies?
Cesar Chelala
Can El Paso be a Model for Healing?
Mike Ferner
The Tragically Misnamed Paris Peace Conference
Barry Lando
Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels
Ariel Dorfman
The Boy Who Taught Me About War and Peace
Binoy Kampmark
The Disgruntled Former Prime Minister
Faisal Khan
Is Dubai Really a Destination of Choice?
Arnold August
The Importance of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual
James Munson
An Indecisive War To End All Wars, I Mean the Midterm Elections
Nyla Ali Khan
Women as Repositories of Communal Values and Cultural Traditions
Dan Bacher
Judge Orders Moratorium on Offshore Fracking in Federal Waters off California
Christopher Brauchli
When Depravity Wins
Robby Sherwin
Here’s an Idea
Susan Block
Cucks, Cuckolding and Campaign Management
Louis Proyect
The Mafia and the Class Struggle (Part Two)
David Yearsley
Smoke on the Water: Jazz in San Francisco
Elliot Sperber
All of Those Bezos
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail