Reflections on the 2016 US Election
It bothers us that one of our first articles is about the US election. It has been a hot topic in Jamaica and other countries in the Global South for some time. Such is the nature of imperialism, where the entire world is aware of what is happening in the USA, while most Americans are able to comfortably remain clueless about anything happening outside of their borders. As long as we provide them with cheap raw materials to feed their industrialised economy, so that their kids can have clothes and toys, they really don't feel the need to be concerned.
Even before the results came in, the 2016 election in the USA was painful for many people in the USA itself, and all over the world. Everyone knew that the winning candidate would inevitably be either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Both candidates are violent white supremacists. Whoever you considered to be the "lesser of 2 evils" really depended on who you are, and where you were. Clinton was simply seen as the lesser evil because Donald Trump's racism made people uncomfortable. While Clinton's brand of racism is one that more people are comfortable with, the truth is that we should never be comfortable with racism.
Hillary Clinton is a violent imperialist, who believes in white supremacy. She is no less racist than Donald Trump, but she appeals to a new generation of liberals who see themselves as the "progressive" generation, as every generation did in relation to the one before itself.
She preaches this narrative that the USA is superior to the rest of the world, and that it has a role to play in dominating global affairs. This is something that persons often ignore when talking about white supremacy, but it is indeed white supremacy. Global politics has become centred on white countries in North America and Europe, as well as financial institutions based in these places, like the World Bank and the IMF. She speaks to non-white countries in the same condescending way that the IMF does, asserting that her country's interests are more important than theirs.
One of Hillary Clinton's role models is Henry Kissinger, who was largely involved in the 1973 coup in Chile as well as the wider Operation Condor that took place in that decade. Clinton herself supported a right-wing coup in Honduras in 2009, and NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, both which led to mass violence and chaos and the deaths of many non-white people.
In the 1970s, Cuban revolutionaries went to Angola to help them to secure their independence, and they were fighting against troops from apartheid South Africa. Henry Kissinger is the person who came to Jamaica to demand that Michael Manley denounce Fidel Castro because of Cuba's role in helping Angola. The USA was a friend of apartheid South Africa at the time, the country that had intense racial segregation and imprisoned Black activists like Nelson Mandela. The USA itself imprisoned and even assassinated Black activists like Fred Hampton.
After destructive policies by European colonial powers, as well as economic exploitation by the USA, Hillary Clinton said that African countries "need to get over" the past. This is not much different from Rush Limbaugh telling Michelle Obama that she needs "to get over slavery." The problem with many Democrats, however, is that they only care about oppression that happens within the borders of the USA.
Democrats don't care that civilians in Yemen, including children, are being bombed by the USA's allies. They don't care about Somalia, Palestine, or Pakistan. Africa doesn't even exist in their minds; the only Africans they know about are African-Americans, the people in the USA itself. The USA could sponsor a genocide of Black people in another country, and Democrats wouldn't care as long as they have a few token Black politicians in Congress, and the memory of Obama being in the White House.
It is no surprise then, that while Democrats would rush to defend Michelle Obama against Limbaugh, they would still rally behind an anti-African candidate like Clinton. Just like Trump, Clinton and the Democrats believe that the USA is superior to other countries in the world.
They like to force their values onto other countries, through economic and military domination. In Jamaica, there is a saying that "duppy know who fi frighten" - which would literally translate to "a ghost knows who to try to scare." The USA is very selective with who it tries to impose its values on. While it finds the strength to harshly criticise Russia, Syria, China, and African countries, it does not lift a finger to Saudi Arabia or other American allies in the Middle East.
Why? It is simple: the USA looks out for its own interests. As long as a government can provide a reliable source of resources to fuel the USA's economy, or a space to host an important military base, the USA would never side with the people against the government. In all their imaginary moral superiority, Clinton and the Democrats only care about human rights when they can use it as a tool to justify their subversive activities against governments that they don't like.
Undoubtedly, Clinton is an extremely brilliant politician, with or without comparing her to Donald Trump, but her presidency would be horrible for the Global South. Her brilliance does not subtract from her evil; instead, it only shows how much more effective she can be at carrying out this evil. She is deceptive, someone who definitely cannot be trusted. An example of this is her attitude towards environmentalists, only changing her environmental policy last minute after pressure from pro-Sanders Democrats and John Podesta.
After losing the election, her supporters began to blame 3rd party candidates. The Clinton campaign felt so entitled to victory that she assumes that everyone who voted for 3rd party candidates would pick her over Trump if those 3rd party candidates were not running in the election. One of the most repeated lines is that if Gary Johnson's votes were added to Clinton's votes, Clinton would have been able to beat Trump. The reality is that Gary Johnson's supporters would have been more likely to support the Republicans than the Democrats in the election, or simply not vote at all. While votes for the Green Party were seen as simply seen as protest votes against Clinton, votes for the Libertarian Party should be seen as a protest vote against Trump.
Her campaign felt so entitled to the presidency that this imaginary alliance against Trump was really a façade to gain support for her. This was never about stopping Trump, but rather about her winning. If she had won, it would be ridiculous for Trump to blame Green Party supporters for not supporting him instead. Her campaign and her puppet journalists, of course, pushed the false idea that she was the lesser evil candidate and that anyone who doesn't support Trump was obligated to support her to help her to beat Trump. One who is disillusioned with Clinton should ask them the same question: if one opposes Clinton, wouldn't they be obligated to support Trump to ensure that he beats her? Here lies one of the problems of the "lesser of 2 evils" narrative; it still reduces the entire election to a competition between 2 evil candidates, and tells people that they shouldn't support someone who they genuinely think is good. Clinton and her clique need to accept that she was just an unpopular candidate, and that no-one was obligated to support her. Many persons simply did not think she was good, and the fact that liberal journalists were saying that Trump is "worse" did not change that.
There are also other things that can be discussed, like how her stance on Syria could have led to a direct war with Russia, or how her aggressive foreign policy in general tends to be uncompromising. The world certainly dodged a bullet when Clinton lost the election. Sadly, it side-stepped right into the path of another bullet.
Trump's candidacy is by far one of the most scary things in the eyes of liberals in the USA. The liberal-dominated media has effectively sold this image to persons abroad who have relatives in the USA. What scares most people about Trump, however, is his bark and not his bite. This doesn't mean that Trump does not have a serious bite, but we are simply saying that it is his bark that liberals really care about.
Trump's rhetoric about deportations and building a wall are scary, but actions speak louder than words. The actions of the Obama administration should speak to you much more than Trump's words. Trump threatened to do many things which caused liberals to lash out at him, but where were they when Obama and the Democrats were actually doing those things?
Between 1892 and 1997, a total of 2.1 million persons were deported from the USA. From 2009 to 2015, all under the Obama administration, 2.5 million persons were deported. Under the Obama administration, there have been more deportations than there were during the entire twentieth century, according to ABC News. If you're sceptical, you can even check Snopes. As far as liberals are concerned, it is okay for Obama to do this, as long as he doesn't talk about it. Among the things that annoying journalists think that "we need to talk about" are not the millions of families that have been broken up under the Obama administration, but the Liberal media rushes to paint Democrats as morally-superior to the big-mouthed Trump.
Now the point of this is not to downplay rhetoric. Violent rhetoric, from someone with a large platform, is still dangerous. Racism and white supremacy are at the core of American society, like a large lump of gunpowder. Trump is like a lighter, ready to set off that dangerous explosion that will inevitably hurt many people. The Democrats are in this analogy as well, as they are the barrel that tries to hold this gunpowder together and in place, but with no intention to dispose of it.
The point, here, is that racism is bigger than Trump. Even if Trump was defeated in the election, it would not have solved the problem. His candidacy alone already called the KKK and other fascist groups to feel comfortable in the public, and that is not something that would have changed if he had lost the election. Of course, his victory undoubtedly makes them even more comfortable, as it gives them something to celebrate. If he had lost, they would have possibly acted out, but they would not go into hiding.
Donald Trump's election to the presidency has proven one thing that Americans often deny; racism still exists. After having a mulatto as president, Americans were able to tell themselves that racism had ended in the USA, or that is was not as bad as before. Persons simply denied that racism existed. This is a flaw of identity politics, and it came out in this election in regards to sex. While white women overwhelmingly voted for Trump over Clinton, Democrats tried to convince people that electing a white woman instead of Trump would have been seen as some defeat of sexism. Democrats are so hinged on this idea that electing Clinton would be a victory for women everywhere. While we don't deny that Trump is a violent misogynist, or that he and the Republicans are worse for American women than the Democrats, the point here is that we cannot reduce all race and gender issues to the identity of candidates. The Democrats' abusive behaviour towards another woman, Jill Stein, should show that Clinton's victory was not about women, and the rejection of Clinton was about much more than sex or gender.
A lot of Trump's support has come from a rejection of Neoliberal Globalism, an economic situation in which regular people on the ground have little to do with the decisions that affect them, as the global economic interests of the wealthy elite will dictate priorities and policy. This Neoliberal Globalism can simply be called "Capitalism" as it really characterises what Capitalism is, today.
Central to global Capitalism is the idea of free trade. It pits workers of the entire world into competition for jobs. Additionally, it forces industries in some countries to compete with the same industries in other countries, leading to industries in many countries either collapsing or being bought out by foreigners. Sometimes the persons who are hit the worst by this are local farmers. Many countries have become reliant on the outsourcing of jobs to their nations, and the foreign exploitation of their resources. Essentially, the global economy gets shifted around in ways that working class people all over the world are negatively affected by, and they feel no say over it.
One problem with Capitalism is that it is a system that is efficient enough to produce enough to meet everyone's needs, but it depends on scarcity to give value to anything, i.e. it survives on the presence of competition, poverty, and unemployment. No class system lasts forever in society. Feudalism ended to give way to Capitalism, and Capitalism must end to give way to something else. As discontent grows with Capitalism, it will give rise to either Socialism or Fascism.
We will write future articles and possibly even pamphlets or books to explain Socialism and Fascism, among other systems and ideas, in detail; we promise that we'll make it as simple and easy to understand as possible. For now, we'll focus on the main difference between Socialism and Fascism. Socialism involves class struggle, where workers identify strongly with their class. Fascism involves class collaboration, where people reject the idea of class division and embrace other forms of division like race. This matters because Capitalism creates a perception of scarcity; Socialism ensures things are redistributed in a way that benefits the working class, while Fascism leads to a single race trying to secure resources for itself at the expense of others.
Donald Trump is undoubtedly a fascist. Like Hitler, Trump believes that genes determine one's skill, intellect, and entitlement to power and privilege. His obsession with genetics and his support from white Nationalists confirm that he's a Fascist. Trump gets a lot of support from many working class people who hate the idea of free trade and open borders, but these people don't often identify with a "working class" - instead, they identify with a race or national identity. Trump received overwhelming support from white Americans of all classes, all education levels, and all age groups. His support is not solely from poor or working-class Americans who were mocked and alienated by the Democrats' elitism, as he got support from much of the middle class and some high income persons as well.
Clinton is a liberal. While many persons see liberals as some progressive force that opposes Capitalism, that's far from reality. Liberalism is the ideology that Capitalism is based on, and we intend to write about this in the future as well. Some liberals tend to be more moderate, and advocate for a brand of Capitalism that tries to make small changes so that Capitalism is more appealing. They will advocate for a little tax to fund some welfare, but they won't do anything meaningful to eradicate poverty or to ensure workers' rights.
Clinton and the Democrats actually represent what the young people and working class of America want to reject: corporate power and elitism. She is seen as a part of "the establishment" and some voters leaned to either Trump or 3rd party candidates because of that. Many persons simply did not vote. Clinton received more support from youth and minorities than Trump did, but that is not the only thing we should look at. Clinton failed to maintain the support that Obama had in 2012. In comparison to Romney, Trump actually gained support among low-income voters, rural voters, and even Hispanic and African-American voters. In comparison to Obama, Clinton lost support from women, youth, rural voters, Hispanic, and African-American voters. Additionally, while you look at all the maps that show that Clinton would have won if only young people voted, remember that voter turnout was low and that the youth who voted Clinton don't necessarily represent all youth.
Another problem with liberals, apart from their leaders' support of corporate interests, is that they tend to be elitists. What matters to them is how polite someone is, what someone's identity is, how well someone speaks, how educated someone is, etc. - so liberals are okay with racism and sexism, as long as it is expressed politely or rationalized in some 'woke' or 'nuanced' way. They think that their views are superior to others because they are more educated, and they think that witty jokes and feeling smart is enough to win in politics. They think that they are more "civilised" than other people, ignoring the racist connotations behind that. They have a problem when oppressed groups like Black or indigenous people violently resist oppression, but they don't have a problem when police murder Black people because the police do it in a "civilised" way that is acceptable by the establishment. Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. warned people about trusting white moderates and liberals. The problem with liberals is that they advocate for class collaboration, just like Fascists do. Malcolm X told people not to vote for Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat. Voters chose Johnson over the openly racist Barry Goldwater. Under Johnson's administration, Black people faced mass incarceration, and the USA was 1 of only 3 countries to vote against a UN resolution to combat the glorification of Fascism. Under the Obama administration, the USA voted against a similar resolution again, citing "freedom of expression" as the reason, as they value the political expression of fascists as more important than the safety and health of oppressed groups. Under the Obama administration, state violence against Black people and indigenous people is still a major problem, but Obama finds himself more concerned with Syria's internal politics.
Liberals value harmony over anything else. They tell oppressed people to sing Kumbaya and get along with their oppressors, and they value this oppressively stable relationship more than the idea of fighting oppression. Liberals have been ineffective in mounting opposition to Fascism and, ultimately, in preventing Fascism. Liberals rush to defend the KKK and other fascist groups when they hold public marches or say anything racist, and rush to condemn antifascists and minority groups when they mount acts of resistance to these fascists. Liberals may disagree with them publicly, but they always disagree "respectfully" and defend fascists' "right to free speech" and other rights. At most, liberals may belittle something that a fascist says, or joke about it to mock the fascist, but they never take Fascism as something serious that needs to be stopped effectively. Politics is entertainment for them, despite having a real impact on the lives of marginalized people and the working class. They will tell you that they disagree with fascists, but they never do anything meaningful to act against Fascism.
After launching a campaign that made a Trump presidency seem unacceptable, and as if it was the worst thing that could ever happen, they are now saying that everyone should unite and rally behind Trump to support his presidency. They are spineless and unprincipled, and they deserved to lose the election. Not a tear should be shed if the fascist government of the USA decides to repress liberals. Of course the fascist government will not repress liberals, because liberals are not a threat to them. If anything, the liberal media will help to enable Fascism by rationalising and justifying it. Leading up to the next election, the standards may be low enough for Democrats to pose another mediocre candidate as the lesser evil, but this time with less effort.
It is good to see the mass protests that are taking place after Trump's supposed electoral victory, but it is disappointing that liberal leaders are rallying behind Trump. Stop supporting liberal leaders. Liberals are incapable of leading any successful defeat of Fascism. They can largely be blamed for the rise of Fascism, as the PSL explains. We call on Americans to part from their liberal ways, and embrace new ideas. Abandon and give up on the joke that we call the Democratic Party in the USA.
Even if Clinton had won, Fascism would have been alive and well in the USA, and her administration would have done nothing about it. Donald Trump is merely a symptom of the problem; he could have easily left the picture and it wouldn't hinder Fascism at this point.
Expect and prepare for the worst, but don't blindly follow anything that presents itself as better. Reject both Capitalism and Fascism. Leftists in the USA are attempting to organise a general strike, and we had endorsed this from the first day it was discussed. This strike should not be seen as a strike against Trump, but instead as a strike against the racist, sexist, and imperialist monstrosity that the US government has always represented. It is against the Democrats as much as it is against the Republicans. Hopefully this event is followed by a dedication to solid organisation to plan similar events more effectively in the future.