Requiem for American foreign policy change

By Ben Tanosborn

It was expected to happen and, true to course, it did. On Tuesday, April 26, presidential primaries in five northeastern states hermetically, and silently, sealed the fate of/in how the US will be dealing with the rest of the world on all issues, geopolitical or economic, for another four, perhaps eight years. Fear not, ye Pentagon-brass, ideologues at State, or international corporate blue-bloods as your future stays safe for a while. Things look firmly tied down as America’s falconry, economically as well as militarily, will remain in charge no matter who’s elected to occupy the White House; or minor changes take place in the mores of that political whorish majority which consistently is reelection-funded by special interests to return to Congress.

In the tradition that old soldiers never die, Americans, having been brought up feeling-empire, tend to fade away slowly, often in denial to the very end. To their detriment, the spark of revolution does not seem to light up as well in societies whitewashed with empire-pride as it does with hopeless, oppressed peoples. For now, there continues to be an American majority, although smaller each passing day, which still considers itself, if illusorily, free; one far from being oppressed, or hopeless.

Bernie Sanders has proved out to be a timely prophetic voice for America, but a messiah he is not. Sadly, America is not really ready for a revolution, or a messiah; not quite yet. Let’s face reality; both democracy-Skeptics and capitalist-Pharisees still continue ruling the numbers, or, at the very least, hold the reins of power. And as the 2016 presidential race is scheduled to reach the final summer-fall leg between Disliked Hillary Clinton and Demeaning Donald Trump, Honest Bernie’s portrait will be given repose in that historic, but seldom visited gallery of honorable political figures and prophetic visionaries too often cast off and/or ridiculed by many contemporary countrymen: George McGovern and Jimmy Carter are two notable examples when we confine our vision to the last five decades BB (Before Bernie).

From the very start of the presidential tilt a year ago, of the 20+ aspiring candidates of the two political parties holding legitimacy in the US, there was only one individual that could effect, or at least try to effect, change in American foreign policy: Bernie Sanders. Although vocalizing his campaign almost strictly on socioeconomic domestic issues, the self-described Democratic Socialist vying for the Democratic nomination showed great clarity of thought in analyzing international geopolitical consequences to certain actions – invasion of Iraq which he opposed – and the need for thorough economic planning before feeding the nation’s jobs to the global-capitalist wolves – as shown by Bernie’s opposition to the many trade agreements which have decimated the standard of living for a large segment of America’s population cast as middle class.

Although the obituaries for all candidates to the American presidency, other than Trump and Clinton, have yet to be printed, they have already been written and only cataclysmic happenings can alter the course to that main event next November as those two candidates duke it out at the quadrilateral presented as a political ring.

At that match for the political heavyweight crown, Hillary Clinton will be introduced as the Democratic Joan of Arc, champion of women and progressive knight-in-armor for the underdog. In turn, Donald Trump will be introduced as the savior needed by the Republic to fortify our borders and make sure that in a global economy America only entertains “good deals.” And, of course, both will be introduced as superbly capable and possessors of the most important qualification in American presidential leadership: that of being a decisive commander-in-chief, and by extension, the emperor-in-waiting to assume the leadership of the “free world.”

What the introductions won’t tell us, however, is that Hillary Clinton was nominated not in a cross-sectional voting representation of America’s population, but an overwhelming loyalty from a racial-minority representation and a discriminating, well-oiled political machine, and a self-proclaimed virtuosity as a progressive balladeer… something she unashamedly stole from Bernie. [Had Hillary only received half of the black and Latino votes, she would have been soundly trounced in the primaries by faultless and racially-destitute, Bernie Sanders.]

Be that as it may, the two contenders at the misnamed quadrilateral ring, will only offer hawkishness in dealing with the rest of the world; Hillary by way of experience, Trump by his bullish, belligerent nature.

Any hope for US foreign policy change with either Clinton or Trump is dead on election-arrival. Sadly for us, Americans, and the entire world our celebratory Requiem mass has to come as early as April!

Show More

Ben Tanosborn

Ben Tanosborn is an independent columnist. After completing graduate studies at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles), BT set out for a career in international business that would take him to five continents, expose him to several cultures, and make him realize the importance for any and all Americans to become goodwill ambassadors for the United States. With his socio-political columns, BT hopes to bring to the forefront issues that are relevant to the national discussion in international affairs. BT resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA) where he operates a business consulting firm.

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker