In the midst of perhaps one of the most controversial presidential election years that the United States has seen in a while, I published an article arguing my position that Donald Trump was a much better candidate than Hilary Clinton. Although I did not believe he would actually win the election, after only a few months of being able to experience what a Donald Trump presidency is like I would like to reaffirm my position. Being that it is still very early in his presidential reign, there is plenty of more time that will be spent resisting and combatting the policy decisions that come out of the Trump administration. However, for my overall conclusion to be accurate a drastic change must take place in the minds of Americans who seem reluctant to relinquish their love affair with the democratic party, it’s leadership, and the belief that the liberal/neo-liberal politics of imperialist capitalists like Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders are not in line with the interests of the Trump administration, the overall agenda of the United States, and somehow better for American people. Though Black America’s foolish portrayal of Barack Obama as a champion of truth and justice and the blind approval of his foreign policy requires it’s own article to itself, here I only intend to show the similarities between the Trump administration and the people who are believed by many Americans to have been better candidates.
Firstly it must be assumed that any person who acts as the president of the United States is a murderous imperialist in collusion with the interest of the state to expand it’s controlled territory through violence and colonization, as set forth by the genocidal and paternalist policies of the “founding fathers”. One of the most popular sentiments used by people to defend Barack Obama when his supporters are confronted with the facts of his egregious foreignpolicy is that he hasn’t done anything that other presidents haven’t also done so there is no need to criticize him. Though I agree that Obama’s policy decisions are certainly in line with the imperialist interests that the United States has held over the last few centuries, it is a sign of a very immoral and twisted political view to believe he is somehow exempt from criticism for waging immoral wars that led to the death and destruction of entire civilizations. By being the first two-term president to be at war during his entire time in office it is imperative that the American public, and most importantly African-Americans, begin to critically examine the legacy that Obama has left behind.
“We came, we saw, he died.” – Hilary Clinton’s (2011) cold remarks on the death of Muammar Al Qaddafi, former president of Libya who identified as a Pan-African inspired by the teachings of Kwame Nkrumah. Kwame Nkrumah has undoubtedly been one of the greatest influences on my own political ideology.
One of Barack Obama’s most famous co-conspirators, Hilary Diane Rodham Clinton, had been under fire during her entire 2016 election campaign for the crimes she committed while acting as Secretary of State. Beyond the use of an unsupervised email server in which she shared top secret information with individuals without approval by the federal government, Hilary Clinton has proved throughout her political career that she is as imperialist as it gets. By committing regime change in Honduras and Libya while setting the stage for President Trump to do the same in Syria, both Obama and Clinton have delegated acts that should have been denounced by the American public and deemed illegal by the international community. However Clinton’s footprints in Haiti, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are more than enough to indict her as perhaps the most evil person on the face of the earth.
In continuation of the imperial legacy inheretited to him Donald Trump has already dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever, blown up a mosque in Aleppo, Syria, and dropped more than 50 missles to destroy a Syrian airfield which was the first direct attack against the Syrian government by the United States, all within his first term. By expanding the use of unmanned air strikes, Barack Obama has created a loophole in the War Powers Resolution which states that troops must be removed from a conflict area within 60 days of a request by the president to go to war if it is denied by congress. By furthering the use of unmanned air strikes there would be no troops to withdraw, allowing the president of the United States to aggressively attack countries without congressional approval. It is without a doubt that this loophole was known to and exploited by Donald Trump when he decided to begin his war campaign.
One unlikely supporter of Donald Trump’s decision to wage war against Syria was 2016 presidential hopeful Bernard Sanders. Although showing concern about the White House’s plans going forward after the air strikes against Syria, in a series of tweets, Bernie Sanders did not condemn Trump’s actions but instead affirmed his dislike of the Syrian governments leadership. From this it could be assumed that if Bernie Sanders had not been finagled out of the election by Hilary Clinton and the Democratic Party he would have also continued the use of violent military force in foreign countries if he had won. And although claiming herself to be part of “the resistance”, Hilary Clinton unwaveringly supported Trump’s decision to begin a war campaign in Syria.
Although there are many similarities between all of the political actors mentioned above in terms of their foreign policy, I would like to refer readers back to the article linked in the first paragraph to get an understanding of why I think Donald Trump was the best candidate. To reiterate my argument and affirm my position, Donald Trump was the best candidate because I believe the amount of push-back he receives from the American public will further divide the country and hopefully lead to the end of the de-facto settler colonial establishment. Had one of the other candidates won the election I do not believe there would have been as much resistance, if any at all, against egregious policy decisions. As seen throughout the Obama administration there was reluctance to condemn foreign policy decisions, in particular from the African-American community. 2016 vice presidential candidate Ajamu Baraka (Green Party) said in a 2017 interview with BlackAgendaReport.com,
“After almost three decades of pro-war conditioning by both corporate parties and the corporate media coupled with cultural desensitization from almost two decades of unrelenting war, opposition to militarism and war is negligible among the general population. The black public has not been immune to these cultural and political changes. And with the ascendancy of the corporatist President Barack Obama, during whose tenure the U.S. continued its militaristic bent unabated and in fact ratcheted up its aggressive posturing in some parts of the globe, particularly in the Middle East, there was a decidedly rightward shift in the consciousness of the black public and a significantly dampened anti-war sentiment among black people.
Politically the result has been disastrous for the society and for the U.S. anti-war movement. The bi-partisan warmongering over the last two decades has met very little opposition, and the traditional anti-war stance of the black population has almost disappeared.”
In contrast, as Donald Trump has risen to power it seems as if people within the African-American and Latinx community will disagree with whatever he proposes, and for good reason, though lacking a critical analysis for why they oppose his foreign policy decisions after mindlessly supporting Barack Obama for 8 years. Echoing Ajamu Baraka’s sentiments in the article linked above that the traditional stances of the African-American community to oppose war and international injustice, amongst other grievances, are apparently returning to the forefront and is precisely why Donald Trump ascending to the office of president is the best thing that could have happened.