09 May 2016 ~ 8 Comentarios

What’s at stake for the world in the U.S. elections

By Carlos Alberto Montaner

clintonHillaryRobert W. Merry, editor of The National Interest and a renowned writer on historical topics, says that the confrontation between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is, in reality, a battle between nationalism and globalism. A good summary, it seems to me, but worthy of a deeper examination.

In the United States, the temptation of isolating the nation from international conflicts, prescribed by George Washington’s famous farewell address, has always coexisted with Thomas Jefferson’s allusion to the “Empire of Liberty” as the natural destiny of a country that should devote its finest efforts to the expansion of democracy and the protection of the weak beyond its borders.

Sometimes the Republicans adopted the idea of benevolent imperialism — Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower (with great foresight), Ronald Reagan (remember Grenada), the two Bushes — but on other occasions the Democrats did: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and even Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Obviously, that stance wove together a defense of the values and the material interests of the United States. Carter, despite his rejection of violence, proclaimed in 1980 the nation’s willingness to defend at any cost the nations of the Persian Gulf, where clearly there were neither freedoms nor democracy.

In turn, Clinton proclaimed in 1999 the doctrine that bears his name, wherein he set down what began to be called “the responsibility to protect,” which included, very especially, an opposition to genocide even if it required the use of force.

This explains NATO’s intervention in the war in Yugoslavia to protect the Kosovars or the Bosnians. Somehow, Clinton made amends for the United States’ paralysis during the Rwanda slaughter in 1994. Two million Africans were massacred in that horror before the indifferent eyes of the developed world.

It was Obama’s turn to decide Washington’s actions during the so-called Arab Spring, and the U.S. Air Force carried out almost 7,000 missions in Libya until it totally destroyed Qaddafi’s army with consequences that were — of course — damaging to all the parties involved. The spring became a long and bloody winter.

The role of the United States, and what some call the Pax Americana, was forged in Bretton Woods, N.H., beginning in July 1994, when F. D. Roosevelt summoned the representatives of 44 nations to outline the economic bases of the post-war world. The defeat of the Axis countries was evident, and Washington had decided that the U.S. should assume the leadership of the free world to avoid a repetition of what happened after the end of World War One in 1918.

The second step in the same direction was given by Harry Truman in 1946. In a memorable speech, he proclaimed his doctrine of “contention” toward the imperial spasms of Stalinism that besieged Greece, Turkey and (Truman believed) Iran. The Truman Doctrine propelled the Marshall Plan, the creation of NATO, the re-founding of the OAS and the creation of the CIA, among other initiatives that remain extant.

Simultaneously, the State Department was developing diplomatic measures based on “the carrot and the stick” approach to propitiate a good democratic behavior, a strategy always subordinated to the struggle against communism. Democracies were preferable, but anti-communist dictatorships were accepted as a lesser evil.

That’s a contradiction that, at the other end, the left embraces today, when it applauds Obama for maintaining good relations with the Cuban dictatorship and the communists of “Podemos” in Spain, even as they refuse to condemn the violations of human rights in Venezuela and in the perimeter of the so-called “21st-Century Socialism.”

Trump, beyond his xenophobic bullying, his narcissism, his misogyny and his mocking of the disabled, somehow represents the position of the “realistic” Americans who believe that the United States is a nation like any other, whose government must devote itself entirely to defend the interests of its citizens. As the Spaniards say, “let every mast support its sail.”

Hillary, beyond her lies and inexactitudes, and disregarding the rejection that she provokes among many in U.S. society, will presumably continue the policies of Roosevelt-Truman and her own husband, playing the role of “liberal hawk” in the sense given to those words in the United States.

Frankly, despite the many problems and contradictions, the world has been a much safer and more habitable place protected by the United States than what it might have been without Bretton Woods, the Truman Doctrine and everything that came afterward. Because I come from a communist nation, I know perfectly what would have been a planet governed or led by Moscow and organized around the Marxist-Leninist insanity. A terrible nightmare.

Print Friendly

8 Responses to “What’s at stake for the world in the U.S. elections”

  1. Sam Ramos 13 May 2016 at 8:46 am Permalink

    What is meant by the modern term referred to as ‘POLITICAL CORRECTNESS’..

    Someone found this definition in 4 telegrams at the Truman Library and Museum in Independence Missouri. The following are copies of four telegrams between President Harry Truman and Gen Douglas MacArthur on the day before the actual signing of the WWII Surrender Agreement in September 1945.. The contents of those four telegrams below are exactly as received at the end of the war – not a word has been altered, added or deleted!

    (1) Tokyo,Japan
    0800-September 1,1945
    To: President Harry S Truman
    From: General D A MacArthur
    Tomorrow we meet with those yellow-bellied bastards and sign the Surrender Documents, any last minute instructions?

    (2) Washington, D C
    1300-September 1, 1945
    To: D A MacArthur
    From: H S Truman
    Congratulations, job well done, but you must tone down your obvious dislike of the Japanese when discussing the terms of the surrender with the press, because some of your remarks are fundamentally not politically correct!

    (3) Tokyo, Japan
    1630-September 1, 1945
    To: H S Truman
    From: D A MacArthur and C H Nimitz
    Wilco Sir, but both Chester and I are somewhat confused, exactly what does the term politically correct mean?

    (4) Washington, D C
    2120-September 1, 1945
    To: D A MacArthur/C H Nimitz
    From: H S Truman
    Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

    Now, with special thanks to the Truman Museum and Harry himself, you and I finally have a full
    understanding of what ‘POLITICAL CORRECTNESS’ really means…..

  2. Sam Ramos 13 May 2016 at 11:37 am Permalink

    Obama: Crime Created by ‘System,’ Successful People ‘Just Lucky,’ ‘Wasn’t Nothin’ You Did’ – WATCH

    http://bwcentral.org/2016/05/obama-crime-created-by-system-successful-people-just-lucky-wasnt-nothin-you-did-watch/

  3. Sam Ramos 14 May 2016 at 5:57 pm Permalink

    Trey Gowdy Just Made a HUGE MOVE, Which Could Mean the END of Hillary Clinton

    Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trey-gowdy-just-made-a-huge-move-which-could-mean-the-end-of-hillary-clinton/#ixzz48faW6WeQ

    The Select Committee on Benghazi, which is run by conservative hero Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), is not pleased with the latest news that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had multiple private email addresses hosted on a home-brew server. This is quite unusual, and was a massive threat to national security. And Hillary knew how damaging this would be to her, which is why we must find out just what she was hiding in her official communications.

    The Committee has issued subpoenas for “all communications” from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pertaining to the easily avoidable terrorist attacks in Libya and at the State Department. They also extend to anyone who might have information “pertinent” to the committee’s investigation.

    Gowdy has the legal subpoena power to expose Hillary and destroy her campaign for President. Here is the release the committee published:

    Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trey-gowdy-just-made-a-huge-move-which-could-mean-the-end-of-hillary-clinton/#ixzz48fasDk8Y

  4. Sam Ramos 14 May 2016 at 6:00 pm Permalink

    Hillary’s “Hispandering” Draws a Response She Never Expected

    As the race for the Democratic nomination for President continues on, the desperation of Hillary Clinton mounts.

    Her blatant and lame pandering for votes reveals her as a shallow politician who will say anything to get votes.

    Except recently, Hillary’s pandering is beginning to back fire.

    The Hispanic community in Los Angeles isn’t buying what she’s selling.

    “Clinton rallies now beginning to draw more protesters than supporters,” was a statement from one astute observer.

    A mix of angry Bernie Sanders supporters and disgruntled Latino protesters disrupted a Hillary Clinton campaign event at East Los Angeles College in Monterey Park on Thursday, Cinco de Mayo, forcing the former secretary of state to cut short her speech.

    Among the chants protesters shouted was “Release the transcripts!” referring to transcripts of speeches she made to Goldman Sachs for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    LA Latino groups protest Hillary, scream “She’s a Liar!” & call her Cinco de Mayo appearance “Hispandering” http://fb.me/1cFxxGMGo

  5. Sam Ramos 15 May 2016 at 3:44 pm Permalink

    Lets check out The Trumpster’s presidential qualifications…

    Obama is against Trump… Check
    The Media are against Trump… Check
    The establishment Democrats are against Trump… Check
    The establishment Republicans are against Trump… Check
    The Pope is against Trump… Check
    The UN is against Trump… Check
    The EU is against Trump… Check
    China is against Trump… Check
    Mexico is against Trump… Check
    Soros is against Trump… Check
    Black Lives Matter is against Trump… Check
    Move On.org is against Trump… Check
    Koch Bro’s are against Trump… Check
    Bushes are against Trump … Check
    Planned Parenthood is against Trump….Check
    Hillary & Sanders are both against Trump … Check
    Illegal aliens and some legal cubans aliens are against Trump … Check
    Islam is against Trump … Check
    Kasich & Portman are against Trump … Check
    Hateful, racist, violent Liberals are against Trump.. Check

    NOW THAT BEING SAID?

    I seems to me, Trump MUST BE the Best Qualified Candidate we could ever have. If you have so many political insiders and left wing NUT CASES all SCARED TO DEATH, that they all speak out against him at the same time!!

    PLUSES

    He’s not a Life Time Politician…Check
    He’s not a Lawyer…..Check
    He’s not doing it for the money…Check
    He’s a Natural Born American Citizen born in the USA from American parents

    Bonus points!!!

    Cher says she will leave the country…
    Cyrus says she will leave the country…
    Whoopi says she will leave the country…
    Rosie says she will leave the country…
    Sharpton says he will leave the country…
    Gov. Brown says California will build a wall…
    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights will prevail….
    Hillary will go to jail…..
    Obama will be deported as an illegal alien and lying on federal forms….
    All illegal Alien’s will first build a wall then climb over it…
    The budget will be balanced in 8 years….
    Americans will have first choice at jobs…..
    You will not be able to marry your pet….
    You will be able to keep your gun(s) if you qualify… (Not a criminal etc)
    Only Live Human American Registered Citizens that speak English can vote….
    You can have and keep your own Doctor…..
    You can say what you want without being called a racist….
    He will make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
    come to think of it, we have no place to go, but UP

  6. Sam Ramos 15 May 2016 at 4:56 pm Permalink

    A new report from the Daily Caller News Foundation says that Persian Gulf states and their leaders donated $100 million to HIllary and Bill Clinton’s controversial Clinton Family Foundation. (AP)
    5:54 PM ET

    Scandal: A new investigation reveals that Bill and Hillary Clinton took in at least $100 million from Middle East leaders. Can such a financially and ethically compromised candidate truly function as our nation’s leader?

    The investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation has uncovered a disturbing pattern of the Clintons’ raising money for the Clinton Foundation from regimes that have checkered records on human rights and that aren’t always operating in the best interests of the U.S. By the way, the $100 million we mentioned above doesn’t appear to include another $30 million given to the Clintons by two Mideast-based foundations and four billionaire Saudis.

    All told, it’s a lot of money.

    “These regimes are buying access,” Patrick Poole, a national security analyst who regularly writes for PJ Media, told the DCNF. “You’ve got the Saudis. You’ve got the Kuwaitis, Oman, Qatar and the UAE (United Arab Emirates). There are massive conflicts of interest. It’s beyond comprehension.”

    Well, maybe not, given that Clinton, during her four-year tenure as secretary of state, used a clearly illegal private email server which is now under investigation by the FBI. Her open e-mail system likely was hacked by Chinese, Russian and perhaps other spy agencies, say cyberespionage experts. Such negligence would seem to disqualify her from ever holding a sensitive foreign policy post in the government again.

    Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney Joseph E. diGenova told the Caller that he believes the FBI has launched a second, possibly more serious investigation into possible political corruption involving the Clinton Foundation. This is potentially explosive, given that the Clintons seem to have run their charity in a way that lines their own pockets.

    The question is an open one: Did the oil-rich Mideast nations give lavishly to the Clinton Foundation in an effort to influence future U.S. policy? And what about Bill Clinton’s business partnership with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Dubai’s authoritarian ruler, from 2003 to 2008? Clinton took away some $15 million in “guaranteed payments” from the deal, his tax records show.

    A picture of extraordinary greed is emerging from both Clintons in the years after they hold the highest posts in the U.S. government.

    In just the past three years, after her stint as the nation’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton spoke to dozens of deep-pocket firms on Wall Street, typically charging $250,000 a pop to hear her wit and wisdom — despite her bitter condemnations of Wall Street during her campaign.

    All told, she took in an estimated $22 million from these speeches — an extraordinary amount, given the growing consensus among foreign-policy thinkers that Clinton was one of the worst secretaries of state ever.

    So why would Arab potentates and Wall Street magnates alike pony up so much money for the Clintons? Is it because they believe so strongly in the philanthropic mission of the Clinton Family Foundation? Or is it that they hoped to have influence on a future Hillary Clinton presidency, which would of course feature First Gentleman Bill Clinton?

    Remember, a Hillary Clinton presidency once looked like a sure thing. Now, given the growing possibility that she could be charged for criminal negligence for putting secret material on a private server, or perhaps even be charged with corruption, Clinton has far more serious problems than just getting elected. Her biggest problem may be staying out of prison.

    RELATED

    Clinton Email Scandal: Now A Key Witness’ Emails Have Mysteriously Vanished

    Trump Gains On Clinton, But Both Have Sky-High Negatives: IBD/TIPP Poll

    Hillary’s Legal Troubles Mount As Her Nomination Nears

  7. Sam Ramos 17 May 2016 at 7:50 pm Permalink

    TRUMP DESTROYING THE ECONOMY

    Illegal immigrants are boycotting Arizona by the thousands and moving elsewhere – showing their outrage with Donald Trump’s proposed law of sending illegal immigrants back to Mexico.

    In the small town of Guadalupe, AZ, south of Phoenix, Manuel Reinaldo is one of those who is punishing Arizona by leaving.

    As he loaded his stolen car with his stolen belongings and family of ten, Renaldo told this reporter through an interpreter. “It’s a matter of principle; I refuse to be supported by a state that treats me like a criminal!”

    The effects of the exodus are being felt by Arizona retailers, who are reporting dwindling sales of beer, tequila, spray paint, and ammunition. Also hit hard are the state hospitals, which have reported a dramatic decline in births and emergency room visits.

    State welfare agencies are preparing to lay off staffs that distribute food stamps and unemployment benefits. Tattoo parlors are in an absolute state of panic!

    Reinaldo told a reporter, through an interpreter, that he and his family are moving to Canada, with a new Liberal government under Justin Trudeau and new higher taxes, hardworking people will better support him and his family with dignity!

    Kind of brings a tear to your eye, doesn’t it?

  8. Sam Ramos 20 May 2016 at 2:26 pm Permalink

    A true bigger than a Mountain

    The Democrats are right, there are two Americas . The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .

    It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.

    That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

    The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.

    The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit .

    It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America . It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

    The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.

    Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

    Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

    You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

    My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

    It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.

    Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

    The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”

    Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas , and their grip on power is based onusing the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.

    It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

    What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas , coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln ‘s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

    “Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.”

    Lou Holtz
    Leo “Lou” Holtz (born January 6, 1937) is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and motivational speaker.


Leave a Reply