The 2016 election may turn out to be the clearest indicator yet that democracy provides no check on government’s abuse of power, especially regarding war.
With two weeks left to go in the presidential race, the Washington establishment is falling all over itself pushing the inevitability of a Clinton win. It couldn’t have happened without the help of a fawning mainstream media, who first shoved Bernie Sanders to the fringe and then heaped attention on the lunacy of Donald Trump.
The silver lining in this absurd election is that WikiLeaks has revolutionized our understanding of those who seek to run government. It has exposed Hillary Clinton as a willing and eager establishment-corporatist shill, colluding with media to drive the narrative.
The subservience to Wall St. is exactly the kind of continuation that Washington seeks. As such, the military-industrial complex will be served well under Hillary Clinton, as they have been for many presidents before.
As the public grows tired of Afghanistan and Iraq, a fresh anxiety must be created in the American populace – all under the umbrella of a never-ending war on terror. Syria has long been on the regime change list, so the U.S. began nurturing the Salafist fundamentalist sect in Syria, which became a major part of ISIS.
The situation in Syria has also allowed the U.S. to escalate tensions with nuclear-armed Russia, hearkening to the Cold War days which were so profitable for the military-industrial complex.
As polls show Hillary Clinton closing in on victory, Official Washington’s neoconservative (and liberal-hawk) foreign policy establishment is rubbing its hands in anticipation of more war and more strife, including a U.S. military escalation in Syria, a take-down of Iran, and a showdown with nuclear-armed Russia.
What is perhaps most alarming about this new “group think” is that there doesn’t appear to be any significant resistance to the expectation that President Hillary Clinton will unleash these neocon/liberal-hawk forces of intervention that President Barack Obama has somewhat restrained.
Assuming Donald Trump’s defeat – increasingly seen as a foregone conclusion – the Republican leadership would mostly be in sync with Clinton if she adopts a hawkish foreign policy similar to what was pursued by President George W. Bush. Meanwhile, most Democrats would be hesitant to challenge their party’s new president.
The only potential option to constrain the hawkish Clinton would be the emergence of a “peace” wing of the Democratic Party, possibly aligned with Republican anti-interventionists. But that possibility remains problematic especially since those two political elements have major policy disagreements on a wide variety of other topics.
There also isn’t an obvious individual for the peace factions to organize around. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who mildly criticized Clinton’s advocacy of “regime change” operations during the primary campaign, is 75 years old and isn’t particularly known for his stands on foreign policy issues.