Why Americans choose radical presidents

US, WASHINGTON (ORDO NEWS) — In a few days, Donald Trump will no longer be president. America, in a sense, is returning to “everyday life,” and many these days are asking: “What happened? How could America, whose policies for decades have been much more predictable than they are now, and even “boring” (remember the 2012 elections, Obama vs. Romney), could “Trumpism” befall?

On Wednesday, the inauguration will take place, and since order during it will be provided by 20 thousand soldiers (this is more than the number of American troops who are now in Iraq and Afghanistan combined), then everything should go peacefully. Passions will subside, and then it will be possible to finally summarize the complete vicissitudes of Trump’s presidential term. Why is it difficult to do this yet? Because of Trump himself and his unpredictability. Until Trump finally leaves the White House, one cannot speculate about what his mandate really was. American politics is messy and confusing but it keeps the country going. Hillary Clinton was definitely one in the firing line with him, and websites that you can visit now can discuss areas like this further.

Take, for example, a statement that is often heard when it comes to Trump’s benefits: “Trump has not started a new war.” Yes, it’s true, but we still need to wait until he gives up power in order to assert it with full right. After all, apparently,

With the passage of time, however, you can already talk about something with confidence. I mean the reasons that led to Trump’s election four years ago. Domestic American problems created a situation that inevitably resulted in the emergence of a radical candidate, and this happened simultaneously on both sides of the political compass. The only difference is that the Republican Party, which is more opportunistic than its rivals, allowed a radical candidate, that is, Donald Trump, to become the official candidate for the United States presidency. Whereas the Democratic Party did not bet on the Senator from Vermont.

Bernie Sanders was not a “communist” and Donald Trump was not a “fascist”, but for American politics, which for decades did not deviate from a widely understood center (and the Democratic and Republican parties have been “converging” for many years in regard to the key, not social policy), both were “ultra-radicals.”

American problems, which are essentially economic problems that have arisen from the attacks and blows of unbridled liberalism against the middle and working class, could in fact be solved in just two real ways. The first is a constructive turn towards a welfare state and everything that Bernie Sanders proposed: a normal health care system on the European model, free education, protecting workers, building an additional social network that would protect workers from the tyranny of American capitalism.

Sanders, a senator who has been involved in US politics for many decades, has become a national sensation with a huge support group almost in a twinkling of an eye. Many people came to meet with him. There were many emotions. True, for the sake of truth, it must be said that in terms of emotions, meetings with Donald Trump were not inferior to these meetings. On the other hand, the second candidate, Hillary Clinton, like Bernie Sanders last year, did not generate much enthusiasm, which is not surprising, since many voters realized that this type of politician was “not an option.”

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, and this is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that Trump lost in 2020. If the Democratic Party were smart enough to allow the most popular candidate to enter the ring, and in almost all polls, Bernie Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump, then today the situation would be completely different, much more favorable (although Sanders is not ideal; some of his foreign policy views, mildly say “embarrassed”).

Sanders and Trump offered solutions. One – from the left perspective, and the other – from the right, and in some ways they inevitably intersected. They could not but overlap, given the above-mentioned major American problems associated with the economic existence of millions of people. Sanders offered to turn to an expanded state-social model, and Trump promised to return the jobs that had moved from America to Asia. Of course, Trump has clothed this idea in incredibly toxic right-wing populist rhetoric, as is often the case during the economic crisis.

If you ask corporations, or rather the capitalist class, then Trump, who will lower their taxes, is more acceptable to them than Sanders, who will raise them! Of course, most of all they are satisfied with the “proven version”, and they got it in the person of Biden.

The basic and structural problem of the United States is its economic model. But Trump turned his attention to immigrants, to the need to build a wall along the border with Mexico. Thus, at the start, he appropriated the votes of that part of America that still looks at the United States through a very specific, if not racial, prism. Trump, being a cunning “media person”, knew how to always disguise his statements so that no one could then reproach him for anything. But at the same time, the backbone of his voters felt that Trump was addressing them. Its slogan “Let’s Make America Great Again!” he never connected with any time period when America was “great”. Trump left his constituents to think about it, and so many concluded that it was probably about an era,

Regarding key economic topics, Trump made some proposals that would help fix the current situation in the United States, but he never implemented them. From this perspective, it seems that Trump was not going to. For example, he said that he would bring jobs back to America, that he would ramp up production again, and that “made in USA” would again become a quality mark. And what did he do in four years of rule? Almost nothing. Moreover, it even further complicated the situation. His trade war with China did not help American workers because Trump had no intention of helping them. Trump himself has said several times that he wants to reach an “agreement” with China that would open up a huge Chinese market for American corporations. And what about the “ordinary American”? Only accelerated job loss.

Trump’s associates spent four years attacking large Chinese corporations, especially high-tech ones such as Huawei, and fought hard to stop the Chinese companies from breaking into Europe. What for? To help “American workers”? Of course not. In doing so, they only helped American multinationals, which are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with China’s technological takeoff.

What would have happened if the second “radical” wing of American politics had won? It’s hard to say since the Democratic Party has taken Bernie Sanders’ chance twice. Yes, at the end of last spring, he himself openly supported Joe Biden’s candidacy, which suggests that Bernie is not as “radical” as his supporters say he is.

And where is America now? She is in a very difficult situation. If Trump was replaced by a socially progressive wing, Sanders or someone like him (even if Andrew Yang with his idea of ​​a basic necessary income, although he really did not have a chance in the election), then perhaps we could talk about more favorable outlook. Let it be difficult, but more favorable. Joe Biden’s rise to power means that there is no better to expect, as he will continue the same policy that has brought the Americans to the situation in which they have to leave their “comfort zone” and opt for a radical candidate.

They were stripped of Sanders, and therefore they decided to vote for Trump (it’s no secret that some of Sanders’ voters voted for Trump in 2016). It is clear that this time they could not do the same, and not only because that they were tired of Trump’s looks and rhetoric, but also because they saw that “Trump is zero.” His “clash with globalists” boiled down to populism and empty rhetoric. Therefore, in particular, Trump lost this election (it is clear that the coronavirus crisis also contributed).

Joe Biden, if he is in power for four or eight years (or, perhaps, because of his age there will be a transfer of power to Vice President Harris), he will continue the work started by Obama, Bush, Clinton … He will not deviate from the basic principles, and neoliberal America that works for corporations, not people, will continue (not that growth has slowed under Trump). This means that the tensions that are being felt today will only grow. It is clear that part of the population will understand it in their own way and transform it into racial, ideological, political, and social tension.

Therefore, there is a real danger of conflict within the United States. However, the main reason is economic tension, and it gives rise to all others. The racist Ku Klux Klan (KKK) emerged in the mid-19th century and experienced a renaissance in the 1920s. Why did this happen exactly then? What was the trigger? The economic crisis, of course. A crisis in which the class that had lived quietly yesterday felt a threat to itself.

All the worst periods of modern history, all the most cruel authorities “rolled up” together with a wave of deep economic crisis and psychological uncertainty of the masses. The deepening of such a crisis will inevitably bring such players to the fore in power, and no media blockade or closed online pages will stop them. There is only one solution, and it is always economic in nature, not political and rhetorical. However, in modern America, a few days before Biden’s inauguration, this decision seems to be pushed further than ever. In the future, there are only “bandages” that will never be able to cover the severe wounds of workers, no matter what race or religion they are.


Contact us: [email protected]

Our Standards, Terms of Use: Standard Terms And Conditions.