Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment

0412trumpclintonmissouriIf all went according to the will of the Western European political and media establishment, then there could be no doubt about outcome of the upcoming US Presidential elections: according to our opinion makers it is simply incomprehensible how anyone could ever want to elect someone else than Hillary Clinton, who holds the “right” (i.e., fashionably left) views on social issues like abortion, LGBT rights, etc., and could thus be counted upon to appoint like-minded judges for the Supreme Court, which, besides foreign policy, is the most important task for US Presidents. Plus, she would be the first female President (unless, of course, Obama, during the last weeks of his term, discovers that in fact he is female and wants to use the women’s toilets together with the other girls…) – and the world’s single remaining superpower being governed by a woman is just soooo thrilling a perspective that it must, it absolutely must, come true.

But the problem is: the US Presidential elections are not going to be decided by European politician and media. They will be decided by US citizens. And – regret it or not – “culture war” issues will probably not play a big role in this decision. Nor will the fact that Mrs. Clinton is a woman win her many votes.

As a website that considers issues such as the right to life, marriage, and the family, as crucial, we find it of course regrettable that there appears to be no mass mobilization of voters who are specifically motivated to cast their vote in a way that will overturn the US Supreme Court’s aberrant decision to impose same-sex “marriage” as a constitutional right on all 50 States, or to set an end to a political agenda that is entirely focused on the promotion of various sexual perversions. From that point of view, Mrs. Clinton would certainly be a terrible President, perhaps even worse than Barack Obama, the worst President so far. On the other hand, her adversary Donald Trump does not look like the perfect embodiment of decency either.

Democratic elections are always the search for the lesser evil. This is always so (for one almost never finds a candidate who (1) has perfectly acceptable views regarding the aforementioned issues and (2) realistic chances of winning). But seldom is this dilemma more evident than in the upcoming US Presidential elections were the choice is between Mrs. Clinton, who is firmly committed to a very evil agenda, and Donald Trump, whose rhetoric reminds one of the early Adolf Hitler, but whose political stances, despite months of highly successful campaigning, remain strangely unclear.

In a situation like this, two points ought to be taken in consideration. The first is that abstaining from voting, or casting an invalid vote, is not a good strategy, as it deprives the less bad of the two candidates of a possible vote and thus actually helps the worse of the two. The second is that if one of the two candidates is perfectly certain to pursue a morally unacceptable agenda while with regard to the other candidate there is no such certainty, then it is the other candidate who should be voted for. We would therefore recommend voting for Donald Trump, although we find him horrible.

But what made Mr. Trump so successful in the Primaries?

Apparently we must learn to read these elections in a different way than we are used to. Neither is this going to be a classical stand-off between “left” and “right”, nor is it to be viewed through the prism of “culture war issues”. Instead, the real friction appears to be between “establishment” and “anti-establishment”.

On the Democrat side, Mrs. Clinton, who represents the “political establishment”, is scoring a very narrow victory over her decidedly anti-establishment opponent Bernie Sanders, a radical leftist. Among the Republican hopefuls those with close links to the “Washington elite”, such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, were the first to leave the race. The last man standing to oppose Mr. Trump’s  candidature was Ted Cruz, a politician hardly less “anti-establishment” than Mr. Trump himself.

In other words: it seems that Americans are completely fed up with their political caste, and disposed to vote for pretty much everyone except the politicians who have played a dominant role in the past twenty years. The fact that Mrs. Clinton already was the “First Lady” during her husband’s two presidential terms, and then served as a Senator and Foreign Secretary, is not a qualification, but a handicap. The woman is hated and despised.

If viewed from that perspective, Donald Trump’s chances of winning are not unrealistic at all. The United States, like many European countries, appear to be in a revolutionary mood.