The American Election through English Eyes
By Sean Gabb
(26th October 2016)
Note: The Libertarian Alliance is a charity, and it takes no view of any British or foreign election. For the avoidance of doubt, this article gives an entirely personal opinion. It is published only to encourage discussion, and does not reflect the corporate view of the Libertarian Alliance.
I think it in general a bad idea to write about elections in a foreign country. I do not live there and do not understand the particular circumstances of the country. Foreigners who write about England always make silly mistakes. Why should I be better informed about their countries? More than that, what happens outside England is none of my business.
I break the rule for the American election because I regret that it is my business. I regret – indeed, I am outraged – that our relationship with America reverses the normal standing of mother country to former colony. Whatever happens in America has a direct and profound impact on what happens in England. This gives me the moral right to an opinion. If the right does not extend to telling Americans how to vote in their own interests, it does extend to considering how the way that Americans may vote will affect the interests of my own people.
Therefore, I begin.
I hope, though do not believe, that Donald Trump will win the election next month. I do not suppose that he would keep many of his promises. Some of them do not seem capable of being kept. But the fact alone of his victory would be a blow against a New World Order that is underwritten by American military power and cultural influence. In the speech he gave on the 13th October, he said:
Our great civilization, here in America and across the civilized world has come upon a moment of reckoning. We’ve seen it in the United Kingdom, where they voted to liberate themselves from global government and global trade deal, and global immigration deals that have destroyed their sovereignty and have destroyed many of those nations. But, the central base of world political power is right here in America, and it is our corrupt political establishment that is the greatest power behind the efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people. Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.
For the man who said this to become President would legitimise an entire critique of the New World Order and the political correctness that it enforces. He might not close down the relevant agencies, or unfund the relevant universities. He might not do much at all. But he is giving voice to a rising tide of protest in America that will not go away, and that is already crossing the Atlantic, to breathe a semblance of life into our own dreary politics. A Trump Presidency would be in itself a political earthquake on both sides of the Atlantic. As such, it would be in English interests for him to win.
But I do not believe he will win. So what might we expect from a Clinton Presidency? Looked at from England, I still see benefits. Mrs Clinton will not start a big war. There may be ten or twenty million Americans who believe that a nuclear war in the Middle East will bring on the Second Coming. None of these, however, has any influence in the Democratic Party. Mrs Clinton and her staff do not wish to spend the rest of their lives stuck with each other in a fallout shelter, arguing over a dwindling stock of tinned pineapple. All they really want is to push Russia and China into a defensive alliance, and then to start a new Cold War against a new “threat.” This is grossly undesirable. But, given that, as in the first Cold War, both sides would continue talking behind the curtain, it is not unaffordable for America or its satellites. Its main cost, apart from the usual hill of non-white corpses, would be a stream of blank cheques to the usual suspects in the military-industrial complex.
I am told that she will open the gates to unlimited immigration. If true, this is a mostly American problem in which I take no interest. Where it is not a purely American problem, I see benefits to England. Every immigrant who turns up in America does not, by definition, turn up here. More importantly, immigration weakens the New World Order.
Put on an American accent, half mournful and half eager, and say with me: “These people are mostly Catholics and other people of faith. They are natural conservatives. We must persuade them to vote Republican.” This is, on the face of it, an absurd statement. The Republican Party is seen – and, below its normal leadership, is – the political voice of white America. It is, in principal at least, opposed to affirmative action and indiscriminate welfare. Why should immigrants from Honduras or Mexico or Somalia vote Republican? Doubtless, some do, because they believe in the American Dream. Good luck to them. But most do not, and will not.
There is, even so, an element of truth in the statement. The sorts of immigrant I have in mind are not leftists in the American sense. They have no interest in “saving the planet.” Most of them smoke. They are not visibly in favour of invading Timbuctoo for its failure to let transsexuals use the ladies’ toilet. The more important they grow as a voting group, the less trouble America will make in the world – and this is in the interest of my own people.
But the most solid benefit of a Clinton win would be its destabilising effect on politics in America. If I think he will lose, I suspect that Mr Trump will pick up more votes than the losing Republicans did in the previous two elections. These voters will not be pleased that their man lost because of a wall of corporate money, and an openly biased media, and voting groups whose roots in the country may go no further back than 1965. There will, as an old friend of mine used to say, be blood on the moon. Whether or not he accepts defeat, the support Mr Trump has identified will be ripe for the picking by anyone else who takes up his standard. The cries of rancour will echo round the world. They will be particularly heard in England.
If I were an American who cared about the nation into which he had been born, my vote would be for Mr Trump. There might be concerns about his personal behaviour and his honesty. He would get my vote all the same. But I am not an American, and, for all manner of reasons, I am glad of that. Speaking as an Englishman, I would prefer Mr Trump to win. I can see many advantages for my country in his victory. But a win by Mrs Clinton would also bring advantages, though fewer.
I will not sit up all night, to watch various Americans based in London talk about the latest results from Hicksville. But I will read the BBC website next morning with more than usual interest.
And this is all I have to say on the American election.
Although I must give a nod to Dr. Gabb’s realism about Trump, I think Dr. Gabb may nevertheless have fallen into the trap of believing there are substantive policy differences between Trump and Clinton, if only on the surface. There aren’t. Even on the surface, they say much the same things about everything, they just use different language.
Clinton is a fully paid-up neo-con. Trump is a neo-con in bad health (I call him Neo-con Lite). Clinton dreams about invading Iran, Trump brags about bullying Iran.
Trump practically got down on his hands-and-knees to the Israeli PAC earlier in the year. Clinton needn’t do that, as she is already in their pocket. Trump probably needed to do it to stop them foreclosing on him.
Clinton is a social-democratic statist who will contribute further to the project started under Nixon, continued enthusiastically by Reagan and every president since – especially Obama – to destroy America’s traditions of individualism and republican federalism. Trump meanwhile is a paternalistic statist who will enthusiastically harm small businesses with costs such as maternity leave, while making America great again for big business.
Mind you, Trump says he will do certain things that Hillary either won’t, can’t or has remained non-committal on (the wall, Moslem immigration, protection of the Second Amendment, etc.).
But Trump is promising everything and has forgotten the cardinal rule of service businesses: under-promise and over-deliver. The Left have been under-promising and over-delivering for years, with successful results (for them). Trump, an over-strenuous populist, is telling his target market what they want to hear, forgetting or (more likely) ignoring that the U.S. constitution has extensive checks and balances that will allow his political opponents to frustrate many of his stated plans.
Having said that, a skilled and really determined U.S. president can achieve a great deal without co-operation from the legislature or judiciary, including most of what Trump is promising, so we shouldn’t discount completely the potential of a Trump administration. The real issue for Trump will be political reality and whether he has the force of will to push through his reforms.
Time will tell. The puff we hear from Trump on the campaign trail is one thing. Soon he may find himself with responsibilities he never wanted and didn’t count on. That’s when things will start to get interesting.
I think you’re wrong to believe that there is little real difference between Donald Trump and Clinton. If that were the case , what he calls ‘the global powers’ (which, I agree, have Clinton in their pocket) would not be mounting such a strenuous campaign against him. They fear him, and they fear him so much that I believe that if he were elected he would need to watch his back very carefully.
Sean Gabb quoted part of what he said on the subject above, but here is the rest of it:
“The Washington establishment and the financial and media corporations that fund it exist for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself. The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal they’d like to pass involves trillions of dollars, controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists. For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind. Our campaign represents a true existential threat like they haven’t seen before.
The Clinton machine is at the center of this power structure. We’ve seen this first hand in the WikiLeaks documents, in which Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends, and her donors. So true. LOCK HER UP. LOCK HER UP. Honestly, she should be locked up, should be.
Our great civilization, here in America and across the civilized world has come upon a moment of reckoning. We’ve seen it in the United Kingdom, where they voted to liberate themselves from global government and global trade deals, and global immigration deals that have destroyed their sovereignty and have destroyed many of those nations. But, the central base of world political power is right here in America, and it is our corrupt political establishment that is the greatest power behind the efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people.
Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.
Many of my friends and many political experts warned me that this campaign would be a journey to hell.”
Those are not the words of someone in hock to, and prepared to do the bidding of, the likes of IPAC.
Donald Trump would crawl bollock naked over broken glass for the neocons.
Nothing that you say above changes my impression of him, which is that Trump is a highly-intelligent man who is gifted in using language, and that the real difference between him and Clinton is in the language used rather than the substance. His whole demeanour and the language he uses is carefully crafted to appeal to a segment of the population – white, blue collar and less affluent white collar working class people (what the Americans call the Middle Class or Middle America). These are the most romantically patriotic Americans and the least critical about canonically traditional America.
Having said that, I agree I went a little too far in saying there is no substantive difference between the two. Taking a closer look at their immigration policies (see links below), there is a chasm between them.
It looks like whereas Trump would spend his first 100 days figuring out how to pay for this Wall, Hillary would spend that time drafting a new amnesty bill. So I will give Trump his due. At the same time, a close review of the respective platforms on immigration reveals no necessary inherent contradiction between Trump’s position and Hillary’s. Trump might end up granting a mass amnesty as well, as Reagan famously did.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration/
Two links do no harm. In general, though, be careful of putting links into comments. They trigger the spam filter.
Looked at from England, I still see benefits. Mrs Clinton will not start a big war.
Eh? The neo-cons are backing HRC. At worst, they want a war with Russia. At best, they don’t mind risking one.
I am told that she will open the gates to unlimited immigration. If true, this is a mostly American problem in which I take no interest.
A disappointing comment. More immigration means more misery and suffering for civilized people and more power for people who are no friends of liberal democracy.
Where it is not a purely American problem, I see benefits to England. Every immigrant who turns up in America does not, by definition, turn up here. More importantly, immigration weakens the New World Order.
Then why did Tony B. like it so much?
cc. GCHQ, NSA, Unit-8200, KSA, et al.
Agreed, he should head over to Stefan Molyneux’s channel, which draws on various sources as to why she is likely to be very bellicose.
I agree with you that mass immigration is not a zero sum game. More non-European immigrants to America most likely means more of such immigrants to Britain and Europe too.
I think you exaggerate (and over-dramatise) the war issue, though. By all means continue to do so if you think it will help get Trump elected, but I think Dr. Gabb is right on this point. The way I would put it is as follows – the neocons do want wars, but only wars they know they can win. The people you see on the TV stirring things up with the Russians are mostly the type of people who would fit smoothly and seamlessly into roles as peace negotiators with the same Russians they profess to hate and dislike. It’s just diplomacy.
I agree with you that mass immigration is not a zero sum game.
For sure. There are more than enough immigrants to go round. Most of America’s are Mestizos from south of the border. They wouldn’t come to Britain if excluded from the US. They’d just stay at home.
Of course the neocons’ warmongering has been the biggest spur to immigration into Europe over the last five years. Some genuine refugees flee the countries destabilised by America, and then millions of freeloading invaders join the rush.
I agree with you that mass immigration is not a zero sum game. More non-European immigrants to America most likely means more of such immigrants to Britain and Europe too.
Yes. Where America led, Europe would follow.
I think you exaggerate (and over-dramatise) the war issue, though.
I hope you’re right. But I’d say the chances of war with Russia go up considerably with HRC in the White House and even a small chance of war between nuclear powers is something is to be very worried about. The neo-cons have repeatedly shown that they are neither rational nor realistic. I’m not sure of Putin’s rationality either.
cc. GCHQ, NSA, Unit-8200, KSA, et al.
I will not argue for or against anything stated above — they are all well-thought-out arguments, though necessarily based solely on what we know (or think we know) about the two pretenders to the throne. I would point out that — in my opinion — the big difference (and I do believe that it is a big one) between the two is that with Frau Klinton we know exactly what we’re getting, whereas with Herr Frump we have no idea whatsoever. I believe that the US Constitution (and its embedded republican principles) are at last a dead letter, as the statists have longed for ever since the Bill of Rights was approved. As such, there is no damage that Trump can do that will harm the republic, and Clinton will only hasten the ongoing entropy. I look forward with increasing optimism to living under no rulers in my lifetime.
[…] https://thelibertarianalliance.com/2016/10/26/the-american-election-through-english-eyes/ […]
[…] vested interest in the future of one another’s country than comes through in Sean’s essay. If the character of my country is allowed to be changed in the manner that president Obama, […]
[…] (original here) […]
[…] (original here) […]