Two Reflections On the U.S. Election
In less than two weeks’ time, The United States of America will vote for one of the two alternative methods of losing World War III. A vote for the Democratic Party as it now exists is a vote for engaging in the fight but then, when the priorities of economic totalitarianism at home and global progressive activism abroad rise to the forefront of their minds (as they invariably do), exploiting the increasingly short attention spans of present-day Americans to simply bail out on the cause, thereby exposing a fatal weakness that invites further aggression from the more overtly tyrannical governments of the world. A vote for the Republican Party as it now pretends to exist means avoiding World War III by preemptively surrendering to the worst aggressors, which surrender will of course be sold — not least to the lead coward’s own mirror — as “making a great deal,” “having a great relationship with my good friend,” and “ending the forever wars.” At this particular moment of world history, for those who care about such things, there is no issue confronting the American electorate that is graver and more urgent than foreign policy — and no party within the American political system even remotely competent to understand this fact, let alone respond to it with determination and rational leadership.
It is looking increasingly possible, not to say likely, that Donald Trump will win a second presidential election, which he will claim is really his third. If you do not like the prospect of totalitarian nuclear powers forming an alliance of aggression against Western civilization and expanding their power and influence unchecked, then the prospect of Trump’s victory ought to scare the daylights out of you. If it doesn’t, then boy oh boy you ought to be looking forward to all the fun Trump will have on social media mocking his political opponents and critics, because what’s the point of being the most powerful man on the planet if you can’t make mean jokes about your fellow citizens in a public forum and brag about how well you end wars while your country’s mortal enemies are jumping for joy at your victory?
Oh, and to the standard Trump cult mantra to the effect that the world was safer when Trump was president because none of the dictators dared to try anything on his watch, I offer the answer that has been obvious all along, but becomes increasingly obvious each day: It is not that they did not dare, but that there was no need. They — Putin, Kim, and Xi most clearly — understood that they could gain the greatest long-term advantages by flattering Trump’s pathetically delicate ego. No confrontation was necessary. And so it will be again if he wins, as his statements about Ukraine, and his new alliance with Viktor Orban, make perfectly clear. In the case of Vladimir Putin, at least, the answer may be phrased even more plainly: Why would you prop up a proxy only to tear him down?
