American voters are being asked to make their choices, selecting presidential nominees who would represent the country’s two largest political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats.
The Republicans are engaged in a fight between the party’s ruling establishment, and demagogic newcomer, billionaire and reality TV star, Donald Trump; while Democrats are vetting the credentials of two candidates, the more experienced, yet hawkish Hilary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. Regarding the Middle East, the Republican Party candidates primarily champion a pro-Israel, pro-war and chauvinistic agenda that is particularly less coherent and more frightening than that championed by George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisors. They teeter between wanting to carpet-bomb Middle Eastern countries, and Trump’s outrageous pledge to prevent Muslims from entering the US.
Their foreign policy agendas are dark, at times cruel, and needless to say impractical, for it comes at a time when the US is still reeling from imprudent military adventures in Iraq and Libya, which has brought Al Qaida and Daesh (the
self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) to the heart of the Middle East.
But their rhetoric is in reality a reflection of the rise of political hooliganism in the US and has less to do with the development of events overseas. This attitude is of course not new, but has finally made a jump from relatively marginal, angry narrow-minded movements, such as the Tea Party, into a mainstream tidal wave.
The twist is that the Tea Party Movement had largely emerged after President Barack Obama’s first term in office and was mostly a Republican establishment attempt at galvanising their supporters to defeat any initiatives that aimed at expanding the role of government under the then new administration.
This was a political ploy with a specific agenda, and its members were described as a mix of Librarians and Conservatives. However, in reality it invested in a model of political populism that exploited people’s anger at the collapse of their economy and the short-sightedness of politicians.
That form of popular manipulation backfired, and even the Republican Party establishment is now dumbfounded by the monster it has itself created, or at least allowed to be born.
Former 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, joined the Republican ‘civil war’ — as described by USA Today — on March 3 as he hurled insults on Trump during a televised speech. He described him as ‘phony’ and a ‘fraud’ who will hand over the White House to Clinton. “His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University,” said Romney. “He’s playing the American public for suckers.”
Of course, Trump fired back with his own colorful language and animated style. Yet the fact remains, ‘playing Americans for suckers’ is as American as apple-pie, and Republicans who rallied behind the likes of the bizarre duo of John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008 know this well.
However, Romney’s anger at Trump’s antics must not blind us from the fact that Trump’s politics is anything but an organic progression of the party’s own hate speech and war-mongering, or, as the title of an article by Glenn Greenwald put it: “Donald Trump’s Policies Are Not Anathema to US Mainstream, but an Uncomfortable Reflection of It.”
“Trump is self-evidently a toxic authoritarian demagogue advocating morally monstrous positions, but in most cases where elite outrage is being vented, he is merely a natural extension of the mainstream rhetorical and policy framework that has been laid, not some radical departure from it,” Greenwald argued.
The fight on the Democratic side is equally heated as liberals and some leftists are pulling up their sleeves in anticipation of a prolonged battle for the party’s presidential nomination. The mistrust of Hilary Clinton, who is seen by some as a hawk and an establishment elitist, especially among the younger generations, drove many to rally behind the Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.
Sanders, on the other hand, seems to follow a similar campaign strategy to that used by Obama. He too speaks of hope and change, although with his own unique set of terminology. His promises are also many, but his defeat in the ‘Super Tuesday’ Democratic primaries to Clinton, who snatched victory in seven states, leaving Sanders with four, made some cast doubts on his electability.
Of the two, Clinton is the obvious target for criticism since her public records and various political scandals have been the talk of media for years. She is an interventionist, uncompromisingly, and her term as Secretary of State (2009-2013) is testament to her role in sustaining the country’s foreign policy agenda under George W. Bush (as a Senator, she had voted for the Iraq war in 2002) and advocating regime change in her own right. Her aggressive foreign policy hit rock bottom in her infamous statement upon learning of the news that Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was captured and killed in a most savage way.
“We came; we saw; he died,” Clinton rejoiced during a TV interview, once the news of Gaddafi’s grisly murder was announced on October 20, 2011. True to form, Clinton used intervention in the now broken-up and warring country for her own personal gains, as her email records which were later released, publically indicated.
But many have argued that, although Sanders is promoted as the more amiable and trustworthy candidate, if compared to Clinton, his voting record is hardly encouraging.
“Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorisation Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists [AUMF], which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, [and] backed Obama’s Libyan debacle,” wrote Jeffery St Clair. Aside from supporting the US’ current position on Syria, Sanders has “voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq,” including in 1998.
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussain from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,” the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 read.
On Israel, Sander’s legacy is very similar to that of Obama. He seemed to be relatively balanced during his earlier days in various official capacities, a position that became more hawkish with time.
Not that many are ignorant of Sanders’ less-than-perfect past records, but some are rushing to Sanders’ side because they are compelled largely by fear that a Clinton White House would spell disaster for the future of the country.
Yet, if seen within the larger historical context, US foreign policy, at least since the end of the Second World War, has been that of ‘rolling back’ and ‘containing’ perceived enemies, ‘regime change’ and outright military intervention. The tools used to achieve US foreign policy interest have rarely ever changed as a result of the type of administration (the lesser of two evils, Democrats, or the raging Republicans) but varied, largely based on practical circumstances.
The presidency of Obama is hardly a significant departure from the norm, although his doctrine — ‘leading from behind’, at times and aerial bombardment as opposed to ‘boots on the ground’ and so on — is mostly compelled by circumstances and not in the least a departure from the policies of his predecessors.
While US administrations change their tactics, doctrines and adaptions to various political conditions, wherever they intervene in the world, massive, complex disasters follow.
Thus, it is essential that we understand such historical contexts before, once more, delving into impractical political feuds that, ultimately, validate the very US political establishment which, whether led by Republicans or Democrats, have wrought unmitigated harm, instability and incalculable deaths upon the Middle East.
Dr Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include ‘Searching Jenin’, ‘The Second Palestinian Intifada’ and his latest ‘My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story’. His website is: www.ramzybaroud.net.
