Will Trump be Allowed to Take Office? (Keith Preston)

Keith Preston

It increasingly looks to me like the Deep State, with the assent of the ruling class generally, is trying to pull a coup against Trump similar to the Chilean coup of 1974, with Trump assuming the role of Salvador Allende and Hillary perhaps ironically assuming the role of Augusto Pinochet.

I always thought something like that would probably happen if a maverick candidate was ever elected President. Trump is not nearly as maverick as some other figures might be (for example, if someone from like Ron Paul, Jill Stein, Eugene Puryear, Kshama Sawant, Darrell Castle, Louis Farrakhan or David Duke were elected), but, like a mafia godfather, the imperialist overlords apparently tolerate not even a smidgen of real dissent or disobedience.

Given that I consider Trump to have been, all things considered, the more progressive of the two major candidates, the Pinochet-Allende analogy fits well there as well. The current efforts to undermine Trump’s election are a CIA-sponsored right-wing coup engineered on behalf of the American ruling class against a comparably liberal nationalist who is being accused of serving as a tool of the Russians. Just like Allende, Arbenz, Mossadegh, Sukarno, and so many others. Only this time it’s a domestic rather than foreign coup.


Trump is a “liberal” only when compared to the normal Republicans and the Hilllaryites. As I have said in other posts, the regular Republicans are ultra-hawks comparable to Israel’s Likud Party on foreign policy, and hold reactionary plutocratic views on economics similar to what you would find among the right-wing parties in El Salvador and Honduras. Trump strikes me as an old-fashioned Nixon-Rockefeller moderate Republican, with some old fashioned Mondale-Gephardt labor protectionist ideas on trade. While he uses George Wallace like popuilst rhetoric at times (which Nixon also appropriated), Trump is clearly a social liberal who has no problem with gay marriage and transgender bathrooms.

He is “liberal” in the sense of at least giving lip service to the idea of reducing poverty and unemployment as opposed to the “Let them eat cake” attitude of the normal Republicans and the Hillaryites. He is liberal in the sense of apparently favoring a Nixon-like detente relationship with Russia and China, as opposed to the neocon and Hillaryite idea of encircling Russia with NATO and military bases in Central Asia, antagonizing China in the South China seas, and overthrowing Middle Eastern governments that reject the Washington Consensus.

Ironically, it was the Nixon administration that was behind the Chilean coup in 1974. Now the Deep State wants a coup against Trump because another Nixon would be too liberal for their tastes. That shows how far things have fallen in recent decades. The US has gone from being a centrist liberal democracy to being a right-wing oligarchy.


  1. He’ll take office. I think killing him before January 20th. or blocking him from office, would look a bit too obvious.

    I’m not sure how long he’ll last once he’s there, though.

    As for what Trump is politically, I think it’s easy to fall into the temptation of equating ‘liberal’ with anything that seems ‘nice’ or benign. The two should not be conflated. Making peace is nice, but it is not always liberal – or to put it a different way, whether it’s liberal (i.e. promotes individual freedom) depends on your attitude to means and ends and how you balance up the two.

    At the moment, neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism share similar views about the means in that they want to adopt aggressive and interventionist methods. Both believe in spreading participatory democracy and the pursuit of free market hegemony (but for varying motives, even within their own camps) and want other countries to adopt these systems.

    In contrast, some take the more old school Kennedyesque view that strategic co-existence is best. Is that liberal? It is ‘technocratically liberal’ in that from an international systems point-of-view it means implicitly that the US, and other states, submit to an international order. To an extent, Nixon was also liberal in this sense, but with Nixon and Kissinger there is a complication in that they were also geopolitical. You might say that Nixon was a ‘liberal realist’ (but not a ‘realist liberal’), but that could be stretching things. Personally I would put Nixon in the same broad tradition as the neoconservatives, albeit that Nixon himself was not actually neoconservative in his foreign policy attitude. I could well imagine Nixon invading Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. under a very similar rationalisation to the PNAC camp.

    On the other hand, somebody like Hillary Clinton or Woodrow Wilson or LBJ, and maybe Robert Mcnamara, would argue that the co-existence approach is, in the long-run, deeply illiberal because it allows hostile regimes to grow and flourish that do not practice free market economics or participatory democracy and eventually become a threat to the United States. There is an idealistic angle to this, but there is also a geopolitical rationalisation as well.

    Somebody like John Bolton, who looks ideological and hawkish, is actually just a geopolitical practitioner. In truth, Bolton and a lot of the other neo-conservatives would fit well into the Trump camp because Trump is just a believer in pursuing American-centric goals and aims, albeit from a corporate capitalist perspective, and which is what Bolton also believes. I see no necessary contradiction between Trump’s views and those of the more rational neo-conservatives.

    • I think a distinction needs to be made between several schools of thought that commonly get labeled as “neoconservatism.” I’d argue neoconservatism is a form of right-wing liberal internationalism that places a greater emphasis on American power than other forms of liberal internationalism, and has a special concern for Israel. In other words, neoconservatism is essentially a Jewish movement (its founder were Jewish former leftists turned pro-Israel hawks).

      However, the neoconservatives have as fellow travelers right-wing America-centric uber-hawks who often take the same positions on foreign policy. These folks are mostly Anglo-Gentiles like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gingrich, Giuliani and Bolton. There is a also a third point of view that seems to have emerged where some formerly neoconservative right-wing Zionists have adopted a perspective similar to counterjihadis like Wilders. Among these are folks like Pamela Geller and David Horowitz.

      It’s also interesting that during the election some neoconservatives proper were pro-Hillary like Wolfowitz, the Kagans, Boot and (probably, on a private level) Bill Kristol. However, the Anglo-Gentile super hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, Gingrich and Bolton supported Trump, as did the counterjihadi types like Geller and Horowitz.

      These aren’t absolute categories that break down along perfectly definable lines (for example, where do Ben Shapiro, George Will and Charles Krauthammer fit into this paradigm?). But these seem to be the general patterns that have emerged.

      • Keith, thanks for this comment and agree. I’ve just been trying to behave myself on this blog, but I have alluded to the Jewish connection elsewhere.

        I think you make the point very well.

  2. I think I’ve just entered the twilight zone of political identification in reading this article. A right-wing conservative oligarchy determined to destroy all things traditional? It seems at least logistically …complicated… to ‘conserve’ a future utopia that is at odds with any traditional values or cultural institutions historically in existence. Are you a reactionary if the thing against which you’re reacting is a traditional society? I think I see just a tad bit more Robespierre in both ruling parties than Richelieu. A hair more Bolshevik than Burke… Just saying.

    • The right-wing plutocratic oligarchs that control the Republican Party establishment are not “conservatives” in the Burkean or modern paleocon sense, They’re simply capitalists. They care about their class interests. Period. Some of them may be cultural conservatives on personal level (for example, they may be personally religious, oppose abortion or have some naive faith in the “American way”), but capitalism itself is profoundly anti-traditional (as even Marx himself recognized, along with serious modern leftist thinkers like Chomsky). I think a helpful distinction is the one Norman Mailer made between “value conservatives” and “flag conservatives.” Burkeans are value conservatives, i.e. family, community, religion, tradition, small town morality, mom and pop shops, etc. The GOP establishment are flag conservatives (i.e. the party of plutocratic imperialism).

  3. There was a distinctly sinister Michael Moore comment that something unexpected might happen to Trump before inauguration. Go into this video at 3.49 minutes

    “He’s not president of the United States yet,” Mr. Moore said to roaring applause Wednesday night on “Late Night with Seth Meyers.”
    “He’s not president ‘til noon on January 20th of 2017,” he said. “That’s more than six weeks away. Would you not agree, regardless what side of the political fence you’re on, this has been the craziest election year. Nothing anyone predicted has happened — the opposite has happened. So is it possible, just possible, that in these next six weeks, something else might happen — something crazy, something we’re not expecting?”
    Mr. Moore didn’t elaborate on what might happen to prevent Mr. Trump from taking office, but he did express disdain for the Electoral College, which he described as an “arcane law” that was “set up to placate the slave states.”
    “We have to get rid of this Electoral College,” he said. “I will lead the charge.”

    • Michael Moore – [quote]”This has been the craziest election year, nothing anyone has predicted has happened, the opposite has happened…”[unquote]

      No it hasn’t. It’s been a normal election year in which something entirely predictable has happened.

      He’s just a fat windbag.

      • Tom – There is something about the tone and manner of his Moore says “So is it possible, just possible, that in these next six weeks, something else might happen — something crazy, something we’re not expecting?” His demeanour is that of someone who has been let in on privileged information which he just bursting to tell but can’t. This doesn’t have to be anything like as dramatic as an assassination. It could simply be that government agencies or even just someone in the media has got some dirt on Trump and are just waiting to spring it on the public at an opportune time.

        • There will be more dirt on Trump that hasn’t come out yet. I think those who think everything that can come out on Trump already are wrong. For instance, it is known that Trump has been moving in the same circles socially and politically as the Clintons for years, including stays on a certain island. Some of the trash will be undiscovered, while some of it will be already known, and maybe even already publicised in the past, but will be dredged up again to bring him down.

          So yes, in a sense, I think you are right – but where I disagree with you is on the timing. I think they’ll wait until he has been elected, as that’s when they know they can do the maximum damage both to Trump personally and to the GOP and the wider reactionary/conservative cause. I would even theorise that Trump had no intention of winning and I suspect he wishes he hadn’t. They will try to bring him down with scandal and threatened impeachment. Their only problem is Republican control of Congress, so they will need that to change.

Leave a Reply