 |
2016 ElectionGB819: November 26, 2017 |
|---|
The election featuring Trump and Clinton involved a choice between a con artist and a politician who is for sale to the highest bidder. Clinton essentially was a smorgasbord politician who tried to get votes from everyone and therefore held no meaningful positions, except her consistent position that the US should invade the middle east. Clinton’s support for the economic status quo backfired against her, because working class Whites realized that the only way others could advance through the status quo is by replacing them. By championing minority and female rights without advocating a change in economic policy, Clinton threatened working class White males. How else could these non-Whites and females advance other than taking away positions from natives, like NAFTA (Bill Clinton’s policy) did? These working class White males defected not only to Trump in the General election, but also to Bernie Sanders in the Primary. They were the difference between Obama’s win and Clinton’s loss, in the Northern States. One thing Obama and Trump have in common is that they both campaigned on the basis of “change” with Obama implying that he would role back military policies and take on corporate interests groups and Trump actually saying it. Clinton with her record on Wall Street, Iraq, Libya and Syria could not run the con game that Trump can and Obama could.
To put things in perspective, even George W Bush in 2000 campaigned against “nation building” but did not govern that way. Many people interpret Bush’s 2004 win as a result of the popularity of his wars. This is not true, his opponent John Kerry did not oppose the Iraq War let alone the Afghanistan War, thus there was no option to vote against the war. It is therefore easy to build the case that Clinton’s ties to US imperialism and establishment politics were enough to make her lose.
Comments
Comments