Submitted by Pachamama
Recently we had occasion to review the series “House of Cards” and with the much heralded first Q&A sessions between Clinton and Trump being primed for profit, we now consider how art mimics reality, or is more realistic than reality. The differences, if any, between fiction and fact in politics. The centrality of war and peace in this election, if any of this could be serious, for a minute.
As we write both Clinton and Trump are going through their rehearsals in order to present what has been determined should be their best image/s. It’s all about perception management, not fact necessarily. Not truth either, if lies have more purchase. They are politicians playing ‘actors’ attempting to win an Oscar or two.
In the ‘House of Cards’ the president of the USA was portrayed in a more realistic manner than the current one or the wannabes are on the networks. President Underwood was seen as a serial murderer; a manipulator; the son of a man with ties to the KKK; a man surrounded by henchmen, bag men, wet workers, dry workers, willing to break any law in the protection of Underwood and in the finale – willing to go to war to avoid negative news reports about his own sins.
The activities this weekend at the UN suggest that an imminent Clinton presidency would mean a declaration of war on Russia. Clinton is obviously head of the war party in wait. Russia has had to asked ‘who was in charge in the USA’. Obama is clearly not, as the Pentagon has openly disobeyed his orders and bombed Syrian soldiers to show defiance to him. He is now the little boy sitting at the kiddie’s table.
And the CIA continues to arm terrorist groups in Syria in contravention of direct orders from Obama. It is clear Clinton, Samantha Powers and ilk are intent on a humanitarian nuclear war to further the interests of the one-percenters. Russia phobia has gone mad in the USA. And Trump may be our worst best hope, imagine that. For Hilary Clinton is a very, very, wicked bitch.
These are not the images we will see in the reality show which will dominate network coverage over the coming weeks. Any realities would require more than a soundbite, be too complicated for a dumb-down public, be absent of the zingers which Ronald Reagan made popular, fail to deliver the killer blow which both candidates will strive for but a draw could be satisfactory for both candidates and is the most likely outcome.
What we will certainly not see are the political infrastructures before, during and after these Q&A sessions to influence perceived outcomes. It is imminently possible to, by objectives measures, win the debates but loose the perception game. And this has happened before. So the showmanship around these sessions are more important than what actually happens during the Q&As themselves. Is this not then mere political theater?
The same will be true for the actual presidential elections. It is very possible to win the elections and loose the presidency. These days, the best way of achieve the ‘dark arts’ of the political game is to make the false claim of voter fraud by non-White population segmentations unlikely to support you while plotting with the internet experts to rob the electronic vote train as it conveys tallies to the central counting center.
This was the type of voter robbery Romney and Carl Rove attempted in 2012 to deny Obama a second term. Had it not been for the hacker group ‘Anonymous’ we would have had a flipping of tallies as happened in Florida 2000. In the fictional account, President Underwood had developed a more profound method for the total influencing of public perceptions by manipulation the news voters read – from jump street, making sure that only information supportive of him occupied the first items on most search engines, influencing other mainstream media houses, like only a sitting president could.
We know that the Clintons have not been dissimilar to President Underwood. Indeed, all US presidents have employed violence to achieve stated aims, at home and abroad. Clinton is particularly troubling and represent an existential threat to all mankind with her intent to escalate aggression against Russia, her willingness to deploy nuclear weapons, her blind support for the Zionist regime in Palestine, as ultimate war hawk. Now that the Clintons family has married into Jewry we should expect Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, on steroid, should she win.
As far as violence is concerned, Trump represents a somewhat unknown quantity. Clinton loyalists have been trying to influence perceptions by arguing that he is a friend of the Russians. A country Clinton sees as her primary enemy, a la Ukraine. In this their acolytes in the media have been helpful in painting Putin as a dictator. But Clinton herself, is not unknown for her love affairs with the worst of dictators. They say Trump cuddles Putin. We are unsure what his orientation is likely to be about war and peace but expect that Trump may very well end up in the children’s room, left out of the loop, when the adults, the war party, discuss these matters.
However, given his history, his mental disposition, a 14-year-old boy trapped in a man’s body, his innate dislike for people of colour. We would also contend that no remarkably dissimilar policy positions from those of Clinton or President Underwood should be expected. We will also argue that Trump’s inability to show empathy and his spoilt-child orientation makes him particular dangerous in possession of nuclear weapons should he get a look-in.
A president Clinton will provide more material for writers on the ‘’House of Cards’’. Her administration will be characterized by so many investigations that it will make the Bill Clinton presidency look like a cake walk. Those investigations will be centered on the Clinton Foundation et al which has devolved into a hundreds of billions of dollars in money laundering, a trans-national, criminal enterprise, operating under the cloak of a 5O1C3 and not properly registered in various jurisdictions nor properly reporting.
A Trump presidency is no less likely to be characterized by criminal investigations. He too has issues with the usage of Trump Foundation money, tax code violations etc. The viability of these proceeding may very well depend upon the relative numbers of Republicans and Democrats ‘selected’ in the Senate and the House of Representatives. But a Democratic presidency and a Republican congress will be more eager to go for the impeachment of Clinton, from day one.
It certainly is not helpful to the people of the world that Clinton has already suggested her husband to be the employment czar. In the ‘House of Cards’, President Underwood moved heaven and earth to have his wife, the first lady, in an open marriage, to be the vice-presidential candidate. How life mimics art!
This political theater is manufactured to be unfair. For Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson will not be there, neither would the other up to 100 candidates who are on some ballots. The corporation, run by Republicans and Democrats who own this project is less interested in fairness than the League of Women Voters who ran the debates up to the 1980s.
President Underwood would have been glad to locate this set of moderators willing to keep fictions alive. Moderators refusing to do any fact checking. Moderators who have said that even obvious misstatements made will not be highlighted. Moderators prepared to have candidates disobey rules of truth without sanction.
The elections in the USA should be about the survival of the planet, the avoidance of war, the extent to which the one-percenters are seeking to gain more control over us all. What is certain is that a Clinton victory will insure all the above. It is difficult for us to contemplate circumstances where a Trump presidency could avoid these sets of outcomes given the diffusion of the war party forces and the acceptance of the PNAC agenda by all mainstream political forces.
Maybe the election will be a watershed. A time when the ‘House of Cards’ collapses. But we seriously doubt. However, these dog and pony shows should not properly qualify as debates. They are more Q & A sessions, billed like fights between Ali & Fraser, with the winner known ahead of time, depending on who spends the most money in advertising on the networks sponsoring same.