When we look at the campaign of the losing presidential candidate Kamala Harris, a number of questions arise.
The first question is why did the Democrats choose her? She was not a natural candidate, ill-informed with no political profile, and a poor speaker and communicator. Did they feel compelled to choose her because she was vice-president, and part of the campaign fund would otherwise be lost, when the original candidate Joe Biden withdrew?
Then, the choice of Joe Biden was also strategically flawed, as he was already suffering from age-related infirmities in the last 2020 campaign, which worsened until they could no longer be hidden, especially in the televised debate with Trump earlier in the year.
Overall, many of the later presidents after Bill Clinton appear to be front men, Bush, Obama and Biden. None of them have had any real political profile, other than starting and maintaining wars and conflicts. Obama was perhaps the worst, promising change but not delivering on any of his fluffy promises, instead increasing conflict in the Middle East. It is strange that so many people still think Obama was a ‘good president’, perhaps fooled by his well-cut suits or his easy-to-understand but empty speeches?
Trump broke the pattern and promoted demilitarisation, bringing troops home from Germany, for example, and giving NATO member countries more responsibility for operations.
His successor Biden did bring troops home from Afghanistan, but under extremely strange circumstances, with lots of military material left behind. New US-backed conflicts began, this time in Europe. Sure, we can blame Putin for the war in Ukraine, but why did the US fuel the conflict, why did it persuade the Ukrainians to continue, even though a favourable peace agreement was on the table in spring 2022? And this was before the Russian mobilisation a few months later, while the war was in its infancy, and hundreds of thousands of young men were still alive.
If Bush, Obama and Biden were front men, who were their true master? The answer for many is, of course, the arms industry, who will do anything to start conflicts so that they can continue to sell expensive weapons systems. And they love frozen, unresolved conflicts, where countries are divided and no real peace is ever achieved, as in Korea, for example.
I would say that there are different kinds of oligarch groups running the West. Our democratic systems are, of course, only a front; those with money can always persuade, bribe or otherwise impose their will. No democratic system is immune to this. And in the US we are now seeing a shift. The old oligarchs who supported the previous regime have been weakened. Instead, we see an alliance of tech billionaires and other key interest groups choosing to support Trump.
The match was fixed in advance. The people behind Biden lost the initiative during his term, and Kamala Harris ran a zombie campaign that could never take her to the presidency. People were also tired of the gender stuff, de-funding of the police, illegal immigrants, open borders, a bad economy, war, etc. There was no longer any popular support for all this, if there ever was. Many of today’s policies appear to be derailed elite projects, and citizens are rarely consulted. The authorities have become increasingly arrogant, and perhaps senile, given all the lousy political antics we have seen in recent years.
And much of the nonsense reported by the media is pure distraction, the abortion debate, the climate crisis, the transgender issue, etc. It’s about creating disagreement and engaging people in unimportant things. Unimportant for the our leaders, so that they themselves can continue with their business, whatever they are doing.
