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:
July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS class struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail