That is to say, how he might accidentally save the world in his own bumbling, barely literate way.
I have no love for Donald Trump: he is a silly, self-worshiping, celebrity megalomaniac and a horrible misogynist, who has probably bitten off much more than he can chew.
And he may be America’s, and the Western world’s, best hope for achieving peace and averting a major military conflict.
That may be difficult for a lot of people – especially those who despise Trump – to swallow. But it’s where we are. And it is perhaps a manifestation of that famous line from the Dark Knight movie: is Trump simply the “hero” America deserves?
He isn’t really a hero, of course: everything Donald Trump does is for the glory of Donald Trump, and much of his campaign has clearly been him playing a role and developing a script that he knew would gather him the most support from the most disaffected among a particular section of American society – a section of society, at that, that he probably holds in contempt, but knows he can play like a fiddle because their crude prejudices and passions are so obvious.
He has crafted out a character and a narrative for himself and has probably, by now, bought into it so fully that it’s no longer even an act.
In considering Trump as a potential, accidental Savior of Western Civilization, as problematic, insulting and generally unfit as he is, he is clearly the one more amenable to diplomacy and peace and less likely to plunge the Western world into a major conflagration.
The corporate-owned media, in collusion with the Clinton campaign, in fact portrays Trump as the reckless, ‘dangerous’ candidate who ‘can’t be trusted with the nuclear codes’, etc; but Hillary is the open war-hawk calling for military intervention in Syria, conflict with Russia and potential war with Iran, while Trump has consistently spoken of dialogue and reconciliation with Russia. Trump has condemned Washington’s destructive policies in Iraq, Libya and Syria – the latter two catastrophes being operations Hillary was centrally involved in – while Hillary has nothing to say about Libya and, in terms of Syria, has essentially vowed to force a regime change as one of her “first priorities” if she takes office.
The simple fact is that Hillary – whose pre-existing foreign policy record is one of constant deception, covert warfare, regime change and collusion with terrorism – is firmly geared towards confrontation with Russia and quite possibly World War III.
Trump, on the other hand, appears to see the situation as most Americans do: that a few hundred faceless jihadists in eastern Aleppo are not worth a military confrontation with Russia and that the US shouldn’t be covertly waging war on foreign nations via proxy terrorists anyway. His ambivalence towards NATO also strongly suggests a desire to pull back from foreign military misadventures and to focus on business matters.
Trump’s campaign is almost entirely centered on the economy and industry and appears largely uninterested in foreign affairs: Hillary’s, by contrast, seems excessively – and suspiciously – fixated on Putin, Russia and Syria.
Vladimir Putin has suggested himself, and in clear terms, that the US neo-con hawks are orchestrating a Third World War and that Hillary becoming president essentially makes this war inevitable.
Putin’s recent warnings have been stark, but largely glossed over by most Western media. “We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know,” he says. Addressing Western and international journalists, he says, “You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore…”
Whatever you think of Vladimir Putin, it should be borne in mind that – unlike high-profile Western officials like Hillary or like Boris Johnson – he tends not to make serious, dangerous statements lightly or blow hot air for propaganda purposes. When he says things like that, you have to assume he really means it.
It was also likely that Hillary was *meant* to be the Democratic nominee in 2008 and to become president back then, but that at some stage the Deep State agencies decided that Obama’s unexpected and overwhelming popularity would necessitate a compromise instead: whereby Obama could run for the presidency and Hillary would get to run the State Department – an office in which she could still exercise the necessary degree of influence on international affairs. Under Hillary’s tenure at the State Department, we of course got the bloodbath in Libya and in Syria, which served to build on the Bush regime’s Iraq War and further the destabilization in the Middle East and set everything more firmly towards global conflict.
It wouldn’t surprise me if someone literally said to her, “Look, let him (Obama) have this: we’ll get you into the State Department for a few years and then you run for president again after Obama’s second term.” In fact, come to think of it, there was that whole incident where Hillary and Obama both disappeared one night and were probably given their secret instructions. I still believe that Obama wasn’t wanted as president by Deep State agencies, but that the momentum of his campaign made the compromise necessary.
This time around, we’ve already seen electoral fraud conducted widely at the DNC to prevent Bernie Sanders from standing as the Democratic candidate.
So how does stupid Trump save the world?
It’s pretty simple: it won’t be out of any good intentions or ‘nobility’ on his part (because he probably doesn’t have any good intentions or nobility), but by the simple fact that – on the surface of it, at least – he appears to be completely uninterested in existing foreign policy agendas, uninterested in conflict or antagonism with Russia, ambivalent about NATO, and uninterested in interfering in Middle Eastern regimes.
He could therefore diffuse the current international tensions by simply not caring about them, pull away from the regime-change project in Syria and therefore negate the further destabilization of that region.
Again, assuming that Trump is for real and not part of an elaborate sleight-of-hand, his stated outlook is clearly the one more likely to keep the peace. Sometimes it’s the bumbling idiot who impedes the corrupt schemes of far cleverer people.
On the other hand, the argument goes that the office of president doesn’t hold as much power as advertised – and, once in office, the machinery of the permanent Deep State agencies and the Permanent War Economy will force him to fall into line with preexisting agendas regardless of all his rhetoric (which, to some extent, appears to be what happened to Obama – there’s a reason most newly elected presidents appear to go grey-haired within two hours of entering office: they’re probably taken into a room and shown the Zapruder film again).
Or it may be that much of what he has said has been an act simply to win mass support as the ‘anti-establishment’ figure – and that, should he get in, everything he has previously stood for would be slowly subverted.
In all likelihood, once in office, Trump will quickly assimilate into existing agendas that are much bigger than him or than the office of president and things will be no different.
But what I am specifically taking about here is averting an imminent, immediate global conflict that would involve Russia, Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Europe and potentially Israel. That is where Trump could save the day – even if, later down the line, he ends up involved in things as horrible as Hillary has been involved in.
Again, putting other theories about the real purpose of Trump’s campaign aside and taking – for argument’s sake – Donald Trump at face value, he is clearly more likely to make peace and Hillary more likely to plunge nations into more war. We can easily infer that from, again, taking what both candidates have said at face value: Hillary openly talks of conflict and provocation, Trump talks about business. Hillary openly, stupidly provokes Russia and Putin and threatens Damascus and Iran, while Trump talks about mending fences with Moscow (although he does speak less kindly about Iran, it has to be said).
It seems therefore – as difficult to fathom as it may be – that the pacifist vote would have to go to Trump. Which is kind of horrible, but this is how ridiculous the American political system has become in 2016.
Of course, had Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination (which, according to many, he might’ve if there hadn’t been strategic fraud and intimidation), this would be a completely different narrative and a completely different election: and if Trump does defeat Hillary, it’s the DNC’s own fault for not being willing to let Sanders compete on fair terms.
The sad part is how rotten the state of affairs has gotten: to the extent that a misogynist, racist billionaire oligarch demagogue like Trump may be the best hope for avoiding unnecessary war.
In most other regards, his presidency probably would cause serious social, and potentially racial, tensions and problems domestically, as well as meaning that so many self-respecting, progressive-minded American women will have to spend four to eight years with the indignity of knowing that their president is someone with such a poor view of women. His opportunistic legitimization of Hate Politics and excessively right-wing sentiment could probably be dangerous at the domestic level.
But that might actually be the price of peace in this Washington Horror Story.
Is this satire? Is this a gag article? No. At least I don’t think so. But this whole election feels like satire by now – so who even knows anymore?
All of that being said, I still feel like there’s something fishy and manufactured about the entire Trump vs Hillary situation and that there may be something going on that’s even more Machiavellian than we suspect.