Trump Demonized Unfairly by the Liberal-Corporate Media
Guest Article by Joshua Tartakovsky
Global Independent Analytics
December 11, 2015
There is nothing like a straightforward politician on the right in an already deeply warmongering society such as the United States – ruled by its own military-industrial complex – to cause liberals to shriek in horror when a Conservative politician dares to make a daring suggestion, one that is far less bloody, far less racist and far less destructive than the real actions the US Government is taking all over the world that result in much bloodshed and suffering and with full impunity provided by the failed watchdogs of democracy – the US liberal media.
What did Donald Trump actually say?
Did he threaten to invade another country? No. That’s what Hillary does. Let us not forget, since we will not be reminded, that it was Hillary, not Trump, who supported the invasion of Iraq and made speeches to this end. Later, she said, “I got it wrong.” But that doesn’t really help the 165,000 civilians who were killed by US forces, allies, police and terrorists since the US invasion, does it?
Then, as Secretary of State, Hillary supported the violent killing of the legitimate leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi. In Benghazi, Hillary failed to secure the life of the US ambassador despite specific warnings, causing his killing by terrorists, and in fact, allowed for al Qaeda to take over the country. For this she issued no real apology as the extent of her actions remain in the shadows. Why should Hillary apologize if the media did not make an issue of her criminal behavior and did not bring what truly took place there to the public’s attention? “What difference does it make?”
Under Hillary’s watch, weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenal were sent to jihadists in Syria, causing the death of who knows how many innocents. Who cares? Hillary has a Muslim female adviser. Hillary supports “women rights” and “human rights,” formally anyway (never mind the fact that she is the enemy of working women). She allowed al Qaeda to take over Libya and then armed terrorists in Syria, but most Americans don’t know about this and she is politically correct.
What did Trump do?
Trump suggested that new Muslim migrants or visitors not be not allowed into the US following the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, California. Trump requested “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Trump did the prohibited and the politically incorrect. He did not call for invading more countries, that would have been normal. He does not have blood on his hands, unlike other candidates. He opposed the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria. All he did was to call for a temporary block on the entrance of Muslims to the US. Perhaps a generalizing response, but not one which would result in the death of anyone, or the maiming of women and children.
But Trump has a problem. He dared to speak openly about an issue of terrorism and suggest an internal response, at the heart of the Empire, instead of engaging in the usual talk on “democacy promotion” and “regime change” abroad. He spoke candidly while politicans generally speak mischevously. He spoke in a politically incorrect manner about an internal problem instead of proposing the imperialism-as-usual response.
The powers that be had to strike back.
Dick Cheney, former US Vice President, and one of the forces behind the illegal and bloody invasion of Iraq, had this to say: Trump’s suggestion “goes against everything we stand for,” he said.
Of course it does. The business-as-usual hypocrisy of the US pro-war establishment is to invade other countries for profit, stir terrorism and create instability, but then accept Muslim migrants into the United States. Trump refused to play this game. He did not support invasions along with political correctness which is what “we stand for.” He opposes new wars but wanted to close the borders to Muslims. His idea was perhaps insulting to some but certainly not as bad as the solutions offered by the other candidates, both from the left and right, which would result in actual deaths and real destruction.
The New Statesman argued that Trump is a demagogue, who carried out a “frontal assault on the pluralist democracy he claims to be defending.” What was undemocratic about his statement? And speaking of democracy, did the people of Syria get to express their opposition to UK strikes against their country at the UK Parliament? No one asked them for their opinion.
One may argue in response that drawing a comparison between wars and migration policies is wrong. By this logic, Hillary and the other candidates are not engaged in wars against Muslims but seek to protect the nation, while Trump supported a collective measure.
But how did removing Saddam Hussein make Iraq more secure? How did killing Muammar Gaddafi make Libya or the United States safer? How will unseating the secular regime of Bashar al Assad bring peace to Syria? Indeed, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran made a very rational case against US meddling in Syria. The people of Syria who have been under the attacked of Western-supported terrorists for years also have a right to live. Trump did not call for the killing of anyone.
But perhaps that is why a new petition to the UK Parliament now asks to ban Trump from visiting the UK? After all, Trump does not attempt to wear any masks or take pretense at being enlightened. That is his greatest sin.
When the UK Parliament authorized an illegal war against Syria a week ago, there was almost no outcry by the mainstream media. Who cares about those behind actual murder who have been supporting jihadists in Syria for years? It is more important that we see ourselves as moral and superior by lashing out against the maverick Trump.
Any way one looks at it, Trump is the only candidate – besides Rand Paul – who is not a warmonger. Even Democrat Bernie Sanders supported jet-strikes against Syria. If Hillary Clinton, the leading Democrat, gets elected, not only will wars increase under her watch but her supporters will congratulate themselves, in a self-satisfied grin, on the success of their own enlightened values. After all, they put a woman in power, warmonger or not. Never mind the possibility that Hillary will pursue more wars for corporate interests and crack down on labor rights of women. That her policies resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of women should be clear.
Whether one is from the anti-imperialist Left or the isolationist Right, Trump, who is already leading the GOP run by 25 points, is the most sensible choice, at least for those who want to see less death and suffering.
Even if Trump does a 180 degrees U-turn after his election, it is not likely that he will be able to get Europe behind new war plans as easily as Hilary will. Will the Germans and the French really support a Trump-led war? Not without protest. The same is true domestically.
Trump took a libertarian American position on several issues. He spoke out against forced vaccinations and in favor of the Second Amendment and the right of Americans to own arms. Trump was also interviewed by Alex Jones. He may be easy to mock and is portrayed as “Hitler,” but he is not a warmonger like Obama who had the nerve to denounce him. Unlike Hilary, Trump has no blood on his hands. Furthermore, he is straightforward and anti-establishment. He does not want to attack Syria or Russia, although it is politically correct in the West to hope for a war against Putin. No wonder he is hated.
It is time for Trump to get serious about winning. We need Trump to win. The alternatives are catastrophic.
While it is natural that as an anti-establishment candidate who is despised by the entire spectrum of both the Liberal and Conservative media, Trump will seek to gain ground by speaking out in a politically incorrect way, now that he made his point, Trump needs to get more serious.
First, Trump needs the Latino vote to win. Latinos comprise 17% of the US population. Trump called for tougher control on the Mexico-US border. Many migrants probably agree with him, and in fact more Mexicans have been returning to Mexico from the US than vice versa. At least 28% of Latino respondents agreed with Trump on his statement expressing skepticism about some of the migrants from Mexico. Trump can gain more Latinos to his side.
As things stand, the border is too porous. Feel-good liberals may not like the idea of having less migrants come in from Latin America, but counting aside exceptional circumstances, the question of whether to living in Mexico City or Houston is not a life-or-death situation for a vast majority. And yet, for the people of Libya or Syria, the question of whether a US war will take place is a life-or-death question.
Trump should appoint Ted Cruz as his number two. Cruz’s father is from Cuba. The choice of a Latino candidate is likely result in Trump’s growing popularity among Latinos and others. People understand that Trump is not always politically correct and can forgive him for it. Trump still has plenty of time to win the confidence of Latinos.
Trump can promise he will secure the border with Mexico after his elections but at the same time will grant citizenship to all Latino migrants inside the US. This would be a fair deal and is likely to gain Trump support from Latinos and others.
After choosing Ted Cruz, who already expressed his willingness to work with Trump, he can move to the Left on the rights of Latinos and others. Among blacks, Trump enjoys already at least 25% support. Trump can gain more votes from Blacks if he continues to meet religious and community leaders. Whether they are Blacks or Latinos, people who think hard should realize it is self-evident that Trump is a far better choice than Hillary. He seems to be more genuine, for one. He wants to be liked by the people too. And truth be told, most people in the US and Latin America admire wealthy businessmen. In addition, American Muslim voters, who care about their brethren in the Middle East and are not deceived by the false promises of liberal imperialism, should support Trump.
Trump can win if he continues to present himself as a candidate of the people, rather than the establishment, choses Ted Cruz as his number two and campaigns among the people. The media will continue to demonize him, but a majority of the public can find him very likeable. It is clear that in the current state of affairs, his policies are the least harmful if not rational, and therefore Trump should be the choice of any realistic, hard-thinking person, who is tired of mindless wars and destruction. Who cares if Trump is not politically correct?
Trump can still do it but it is time for him to start getting serious. He needs a Latino vice president now.
Joshua Tartakovsky is an independent journalist and a graduate of Brown University and LSE where he studied international relations. He lives in Latin America, the US, Europe and the Middle East. In the past, he worked for the International Defense and Security Team at Transparency International in London and interned for the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (Sarajevo), the Global Public Policy Institute (Berlin) and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Jerusalem). He also taught in a favela in Rio de Janeiro, and produced a short film interviewing students in occupied Palestine. Due to the fact that he grew up in Israel and lived in various developing countries he gained unconventional perspectives from the bottom-up on pressing issues and integrated various viewpoints including those that often remain unheard in the academic ivory tower. He likes to challenge commonly accepted notions by providing original perspectives. He is interested in critiquing Western hegemony, giving a voice to the marginalized and the potential of a multipolar world. He wrote on Greece, Israel-Palestine, Ukraine, Russia and Cuba. His articles have been published on Truth-Out, AlterNet, Off-Guardian, Anti-war, Telesur, CounterPunch and others and he appeared on Press TV and Russia Today.
Quemado Institute Comments:
Author Joshua Tartakovsky offers excellent arguments in favor a Donald Trump presidency, which we support. Tartakovsky is right in trying to ascertain pragmatically what strategies might help Trump succeed. And since the other candidates, were they in office, would no doubt wreak havoc for the United States and the world as a whole, it is indeed urgent that Trump be elected. It does not seem, however, that Cruz would necessarily be a good vice presidential choice. First, he has suggested carpet bombing ISIS, with implied use of nuclear weapons. Despite the fact that the Islamic State must be eliminated, and that Trump favors bombing them aggressively, carpet bombing is nevertheless a war crime, and could bring nuclear repercussions for example from Pakistan, a consequence that must be avoided at all costs due to the risk of nuclear winter.
Trump’s choice should not be based on race, gender or creed, but entirely on a candidate’s effectiveness for the future administration. Trump has expressed no malice against any person due to race, and we believe this will be clarified through his campaign. There is no reason to expect he will not garner broad support from Hispanics.
While we have deigned to publish plenty of advice for Putin, it would be beyond our capacity to offer advice to Trump.