“Conserved” freedom: Will Trump save U.S. from dictatorship of tolerance?
With every new wave, the presidential campaign in U.S. sparks more and more scandals. Prior to the second round of the Clinton vs. Trump debate, a recording of Donald Trump’s private conversation that took place 11 years ago was made public leaving furious not only his political opponents, but also his fellow party members. Some of them even hurried to urge Trump to exit the presidential race.
It is not easy for the Russian readers to comprehend the feelings of U.S. public at full. In a private conversation, Trump simply said women like him due to his glory and money. He told the person he was talking to about how he tried to seduce a married woman. Even though it was rather lewd conversation, as Trump used rather crude phrases, his words were not for mainstream audience. Anyway, prior to the second round of debate, Trump’s supporters, 160 high-ranking Republicans, said they are disappointed at their candidate for president. Among them was ex-governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain with his spouse, Condoleezza Rice as well as Utah Senator Mike Lee, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and others.
The leadership of the Republican Party even scheduled a special conference for October 10 over the incident to discuss Trump’s possible replacement. The Republicans have certainly calmed down after Trump successfully held the second round of debate with Clinton. Although the poll among CNN viewers revealed that the Democratic Party candidate won the debate, experts say this time Trump looked much more confident and successfully parried his opponent’s thrusts. After revealing details of each other’s life (Trump parried Clinton’s thrusts about his “sexist” statements made 11 years ago by recalling the immoral behavior of her husband – Bill Clinton), the opponents shifted to foreign policy agenda.
As usually Clinton insisted on the need to “press Russia” which as she claimed is destroying the “opposition” in Aleppo. Perhaps, such statements could impress someone in 2011 when Washington used the myth about “democratic oppositionists” in Syria defining as such even the evident cutthroats-radical Islamists. Now, after a series of terror attacks in the world by Daesh (ISIL), a terrorist organization banned in Russia, such statements sound at least strange. Nevertheless, the ex-secretary of state insists on her “war crime” allegations against Moscow and Damascus.
Trump, in turn, accused Clinton of crimes saying her place is in prison. The billionaire recalled that as secretary of state she used her personal mail for official correspondent. Yet, it was not the only “sin” of Clinton. For instance, it became known earlier that she did nothing during the events in Benghazi, Libya, when the crowd attacked the U.S. ambassador. Although all the charges against Clinton connected with the Department’s leaked official letters were dismissed, this case cannot be called closed either – while she was acquitted, the Romanian hacker Macel Lehel, known as Guccifer, died at a U.S. jail under strange circumstances. He was the only one who knew the true story of hacking Clinton’s email. That is not all. Clinton’s name is often associated with terrorist groups. As Secretary of State, she and her team supported the Syrian “opposition” that soon grew into the “Islamic State”, a terrorist organization banned in Russia. Not only Donald Trump, but also for instance ex-mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani called Hillary as “co-founder of IS.”
Passions run high during the current presidential race also as the incumbent president Barack Obama does not participate in them. However, the main reasons of such heated campaign is probably the crisis of ideology that has matured in U.S.
At present, the Clinton vs Trump confrontation is more than just traditional debate of the Democrats and Republicans. The gap is much deeper. Trump resembles a revolt against American neo-conservatism, a strange ideology that secured tolerance as intolerable dictatorship. It is noteworthy that in the present-day reality in U.S., Trump’s words he said 11 years ago in a private friendly talk in a male company sparked a wider response and criticism rather than the fact of unsanctioned interference into the private life and publication of a private talk.
Apparently, Americans got used to the idea of living “closely watched,” under permanent surveillance by the security services. U.S. has not even noticed how the fundamental principles of personal freedom and human rights become rigid, turning into a moral dictatorship very similar to the most criticized archaism. No matter what a person is forced to do: whether to refrain from having sex before marriage or demonstratively respect minorities and feminists. Both the cases are enforcement and violence against a person and his right to personal opinion.
Speaking of the United States’ problems, very often the conversation drifts to such phenomenon as “police state” and total surveillance of the citizens by the security services. There is something even more oppressive for the citizens – “public opinion,” the oppressive atmosphere of overall harassment of dissidents. Freedom of speech has been driven to a narrow corridor of various taboos when one can freely speak only the “right” words, no matter that these are words about “equality” and “tolerance”.
One should not endlessly use freedom and equality rhetoric to dominate in the world. The “export-oriented model of democracy” has gradually spread inside U.S. too ousting all the healthy visions of civic freedoms.
The domestic crisis inevitably sparks problems on the external fronts. Today Washington follows past practices little thinking about the final goal. Why do Americans enter a deadly embrace with Moscow in Middle East? Oil? Syria is not a serious player on the world energy market, as it has no big oil reserves. Is it about the threat of the “Shia” bloc strengthening in the Middle East as a probable opponent for U.S. and its allies? Turning the region where the interests of Big Powers collide into a flash point is fraught with much bigger danger for the Western world. The U.S. politicians have already increased the degree of confrontation with the nuclear state (Russia) to an unprecedented level.
In fact, U.S. does not need the fight for Syria, but it does fight for its destruction ignoring the tragic examples of Iraq and Libya. U.S. applies an identical tactics abroad too – it supports radical forces creating chaos and leaving tragic consequences and spreading the threat of terrorism around the world (including U.S.).
Donald Trump is neither “Putin’s fellow” nor “betrayer” of his country. What makes him different from his opponents (both the Democratic and Republican ones) is his aspiration to put an end to the schizophrenia in the domestic and foreign policy of U.S. Therefore, he offers a single front of fighting terrorism in cooperation with Russia and even with Bashar al-Assad, since he understands how important it is now – much more important than useless efforts to oust Russia from Syria. Two years have passed since U.S. launched its operation in Syria and a year since Moscow sent its Aerospace Force there. It has become evident that it is practically impossible to destroy terrorists in that complicated region unless there is a single front to fight them. It has to choose between cooperation and the “Libyan scenario” for a significant part of Syria, if not for the entire country. Yet, even the “author” of that scenario, Barack Obama, has already criticized it.
It is evident that Washington will not become a friend of Russia, if Donald Trump comes to power in U.S. It will remain a serious rival, but at the same time a reasonable and logic-driven rival able to negotiate and make concessions for the peace on the Earth. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidential race, Washington will continue its current hypocritical and vicious domestic policy and irrational foreign policy. This is disastrous not just for Americans and us, but for the world.
Nadezhda Alekseyeva for EADaily
Published on October 10th, 2016 08:22 PM