Trump as the transitional de-imperialist? [ZeroAnthro]
The above contains some very interesting thoughts.
Anthropologist Max Forte sees Trump as a sort-of Gorbachev figure (but with a markedly different personality). A transitional leader who can put a positive spin on the necessary and inevitable downsizing of a superpower’s imperial overreach. Ideally, sing the more ambitious but self-destructive desires of the nation to sleep with the whole Make-America-Great / Ronald-Reagan-Reboot schtick.
I agree very much that the US would benefit from someone like Gorbachev, but to cast Trump in that role? It’s quite a stretch. Forte reviews Trumps foreign policy positions to extract a certain amount of evidence that Trump’s positions have some de-imperializing direction. But it’s a little forced if you ask me – and Forte acknowledges some glaring dissonances, like the “take-their-oil” line on Iraq.
I see Trump as more of an anti-establishment protest vote first and foremost, with an ad-hoc mix of whatever populist lines he could use. Some just plain nasty (for example, attacking Bush’s wife being Mexican). Others quite legitimate (opposition to globalist strand of trade agreements, for instance). But to take the theme of imperialism as the central theme? I doubt most Americans care much about which position the “empire” knob is set to on the control panel of the state. Forte is projecting his own specialty into his analysis, I’d say.
I should clarify, that I think Forte is right in the sense that Clinton is undoubtedly the more neoconservative of the two principal candidates, having showed not an ounce of remorse for what she did to Libya, for a long time actively touting it as an “accomplishment”, and I’m sure there’s more. I just don’t think, unfortunately, that foreign policy is a central issue this season.
Forte ends with an endorsement of Trump. I can’t agree with that either. 3rd party all the way for me.
http://bothbad.org Jill Stein 2016