Obama, Romney — same fascist brand-A A +A
Thursday, October 25, 2012
U.S. presidential election that will pit President Obama and challenger Romney will take place in barely two weeks.
Do we have a stake in that election? Yes, quite a few but very important ones.
The November election will determine the fate of millions of Americans, including hundreds of thousands of Filipino immigrants, now demanding social security and better social services from the American government.
Another is the issue of human rights amid the Obama regime’s tightening control of freedom of movement, information and protests of the American people against its fascistic domestic and foreign policies.
In fact, the elections will take place as the United States is preparing new military interventions and wars of aggression against Syria and Iran, first of all, and ultimately against China, Russia and other rival powers.
Will the results of elections effect significant reforms or changes in U.S. policies and programs?
Analyzing the current U.S. political terrain, and the records of Obama and Romney, I can easily conclude that the November U.S. elections will not matter much on the American people and foreign immigrants because the entire process demonstrates the thoroughly undemocratic character of the U.S. election itself in which the American people have no say on any of the fundamental issues and campaign debates. They are mere spectators.
On social concerns, the election results will likely worsen the present predicaments of the American people, and worsens the world conflicts, as both Obama and Romney battle who can be a better fascist.
In their recent and final debate, they both declared themselves defenders of “democracy” and “freedom,” even as they also stand for American government that will continue to have their money and weapons prop up dictatorships like the Saudi monarchy, the kleptocratic rulers of Congo and other resource-rich African states, and military-backed regimes from Honduras to Egypt.
They both vowed to accept unquestioningly the necessity to use military force and political subversion to safeguard the economic and strategic interests of the American financial aristocracy anywhere in world.
They do have some disputes but they should be viewed within a common political framework of preserving American imperialist interests and its self-imposed role as the Robocop of the world.
According to data from Canada-based global research center, Obama won the Democratic Party nomination in 2008 over Hillary Clinton in large measure because he positioned himself as the more “antiwar” of the two candidates, in part by repeatedly citing her 2002 vote to authorize George W. Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq. He won the general election over McCain by taking advantage of the massive popular discontent with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Once in office, however, Obama reappointed Bush’s secretary of defense, Robert Gates, selected a former general as his national security adviser, and his “hawkish” former rival Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. He doubled and then tripled the US troop commitment to Afghanistan, while adhering to the withdrawal schedule in Iraq negotiated by the Bush administration.
Last year, Obama played the decisive role in facilitating the NATO war against Libya, which led to the overthrow and murder of Muammar Gaddafi and 50,000 deaths. Now his administration is preparing a similar fate for the Assad regime in Syria, where the US-instigated civil war has already claimed 30,000 lives.
US troops, warplanes and drone missiles are now deployed over a far wider area than under the Bush administration, including the Arabian Peninsula, the Horn of Africa, and much of the Sahara and North Africa, in addition to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The maneuvers of the US Navy in the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean, as well as Obama’s agreements to forward-deploy American ground troops in Australia and the Philippines, are part of a long-range strategy of encircling China with US military bases and client states, to preserve American domination of the Asia-Pacific region despite China’s rise as an economic power.
Republican challenger Mitt Romney voiced nearly identical positions in support of war, illegal killings and imperialist intervention across the globe.
This latest presidential debate made it clear that the US political establishment is laying the groundwork for new military interventions in the aftermath of November 6, and that the American people will have no means of expressing at the ballot box their opposition to an escalation of global militarism.
While both Obama and Romney threw in empty rhetoric about “nation-building at home” and bringing back “good jobs and rising take-home pay,” the overwhelming theme of this third debate was US imperialism’s determination to utilize its military superiority to counter the decline of American capitalism’s position in the world economy and offset the deepening crisis that began with the Wall Street meltdown of 2008.
Both Obama and Romney put forward identical policies of aggression and unconditional support for Israel in the event it launches an unprovoked war.
Obama stressed his readiness to order direct US military intervention, repeating the threat that his administration would not “take any options off the table” in dealing with Iran, and that “the clock is ticking” down to another US war of aggression. Romney had nothing to add, outside of his insistence that he would have introduced even more punishing economic sanctions, and sooner than Obama had.
Both likewise agree to use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to U.S. and their allies around the world.
In the main, American people and the peoples around the world can expect only of a more aggressive, interventionist and fascistic conduct of the U.S. government in the aftermath of November elections.
Obama or Romney, is just the same as King Cobra or Anaconda.
They both kill and kill with extreme prejudice and brutality.
Published in the Sun.Star Bacolod newspaper on October 25, 2012.