The US presidential election is best seen through the prism of the crisis of US World leadership and global liberal Capitalism as itself. The Trump-Biden rivalry is, perhaps, the most perfectly personalized clash of two geopolitical and economic paths of the United States and, more broadly, the entire Western World. The last time we had such a clear distinction was in 1960, when John F. Kennedy won (in a very controversial way) with Richard Nixon.
Of course, the forms of making politics and its external image have changed since then. Other content is also used to attract Western public attention. Nevertheless, the general rule remains almost the same – will the American military-industrial sector (focused on strengthening the internal market and rebuilding America as a strong state) gain / maintain a temporary advantage or will the vision of global financial expansion with the US as the guardian of the interests of international Financière prevail. The only paradox is that major parties have swapped places over the past 60 years and today it’s up to Republicans to fight for the dollar as the national currency, while Democrats guard the Fed’s checks as a global settlement – and a tool to accumulate global debt.
Aggression or Incorporation?
It is this fundamental economic distinction that also determines the political agendas of both candidates. For industrial-type capitalism, represented by Donald Trump, China remains the main competitor, which (drawing conclusions from history) escaped from the possible currency and debt trap set by the USA (which proved so effective against Japan in 1985). In turn, the great financiers, currently linking their hopes with Joe Biden, see in China at most the next stage in the evolution of global Capitalism, and perhaps even a candidate for the role of replacing the United States in a process in which the United Kingdom and the Netherlands were previously World financial centres.
Consequently, D. Trump wants to destroy everything that stands in his way of implementing the program of isolation and defeating China, while the Democrats see the future of US-Chinese relations as incorporation, without deciding who will win in it and assuming that anyway this is the financial sector (like a casino) which always wins. The excess of American aggression, especially the need to justify the record-breaking military spending – this part of the American establishment would prefer to focus on less important directions, such as Russia and Central Europe, which is in line with the priority of expanding the reign of liberal so-called democracy, which is co-important for this part of the Western elites and accompanying inevitably cultural and civilization contents, which are to result in the construction of a new man and a global society. Of course – under the authority of the World Government.
Second Term in Office – the Best Time for Wars
In the rivalry of these two visions, however, we should not ignore the points of tangent and common to both candidates. Such an element of constancy in American politics is the unshakable position of Israel, only confirming the fact that the second, besides Palestine, the state occupied by the Zionists, these are the United States. Of course, there are some differences – Donald Trump is a typical overzealous neophyte seeking the full support of the influential Zionist lobby, hence the current president’s preference for primitive force solutions, such as forcing smaller, dependent states to move their embassies to Jerusalem (as we have seen recently in Serbia’s example). D. Trump feels he still has to prove his promised status as “Israel’s greatest friend,” and this results in nervous and aggressive movements (like the memorable murder of General Soleimani in January 2020).
It should also be borne in mind that during his possible second term in office, D. Trump will no longer be constrained by his informal commitment to an extortion policy, but without war, anyway. It cannot therefore be ruled out that his possible presidential re-election will mean a full-blown conflict – almost certainly in the Middle-, and very likely also in the Far East. The Americans also fled Syria to let D. Trump boast that he did not start any new war and thus deserved to be re-elected. However, if he does get it – he will be like a shotgun hanging on the stage during a theatrical performance: it will just have to fire exactly in the last act.
Unlike the Republican candidate, the Democrat will rather continue the policy of soft expansion, colour revolutions in which the liberal democrats so bravely second to George Soros. In fact, from the point of view of, for example, Iran – the whole difference comes down to whether they will be bombed by Israeli rockets under the cover of American fighters and aircraft carriers, or whether crowds of Internet-driven youth led by liberal agitators will appear on the streets of their cities…
The Very Last Days
Indeed, we are dealing with the last days of both corporate Capitalism and liberal democracy. And either both of these stages of human degeneration will pass to the next stage of the World Government and the elimination of states as a redundant level of indirect management of both economy and social consciousness – or the degenerated Western system will collapse under the weight of internal contradictions, including an economic breakdown, which cannot be rollover forever.
Of course, the answer to the question of what will happen, what future awaits us – we will not get the answer on 3th November 2020, during the American election night. Certainly, however, by the morning of the next day, we will be closer to guessing what war awaits us first – with Iran and China, or with Russia. Because that is, more or less, the whole sense of choice between Trump and Biden.