GTY_donald_trump_hillary_clinton_sk_150619_16x9_992

By JULIA KASSEM, Staff Columnist

Voting strategically characterizes a bipolar electoral system, where one’s electoral duty and agency is hostage to those who hold the substantial political dominion and stamina to succeed in a duopoly. However, not even the two forerunners in a general election are immune from the duopolistic platforms that mitigate any ounce of nuance from opportunist shrills. From its voters, the climate of elections projects these demands onto its constituents, with strategy and opportunity, as opposed to ideology and opportunity cost dictating the behavior in the polls which itself represents a response to erratic behaviors at the podium.

When Clinton’s crass corporatism and hawkish history of supporting the Iraq war, funding rebels in Syria, and escalating conflicts in Libya showcased a proven track record that trumps Trump, relegating the rhetorical renegade into a paltry of a tycoon who could barely lead a business, let alone a country. This is made even more facile with Trump’s own ideological track record of social stances in 1999 such as his indifference towards abortion and support for universal health care. Sure, the tycoon’s economic policies were always consistent, but in today’s political climate neoliberalism puts you left-of-center.

The only fundamental difference between Trump and Clinton seems to be the extent by which they exercise their rhetoric. In the centuries between Machiavelli and Gingrich, polemics are more well rehearsed than is subject matter. It worked when Niccolo tried to pen out political theory that would fissure together some sanity and security in the throes of the Renaissance.

With safety and security, the frazzled tagline in last week’s Republican debates, there’s no doubt that mudslinging pissing contests on the nightly news or irresponsible policies can serve well in eliminating the very chaos that is often perpetuated in the campaign run. The most obvious difference, it seems, between the two forerunners is in the subconscious; with Trump appealing to the disenchanted, trigger-happy echelons of the American Id in contrast to Clinton’s quasi-liberal logos that has headlocked the American Ego desperately in search of solace from the former’s disastrous drivel.

The rise of Trump has been nothing more than symptomatic, as the parasitic bigot whose drivel proliferates out of a festering host of post 9/11 bigotry and paranoia, contributing to and vocalizing the paralysis and pathologization of America. Still, for every action Trump trumps, there is an equal — though not always opposite — reaction from Clinton, who is hesitantly liberal though a bleeding heart hawk and corporatist, and is precisely a more dangerous choice for America if said question is controlled to accommodate a “lesser of two evils.” Trump’s confrontational attitude is definitely unjustified, yet Clinton’s vindictive suaveness would have us outraged over a hell of a lot less.

Trump Would Shake Democrats Out of Complacency

Bush’s invasion of Iraq caused international outrage, choreographing a mass of worldwide protests and later inspiring a cool System of A Down music video. During his presidency, anti-war sentiments transgressed the underpinning terror wrought by invasion and destruction abroad and the erosion of civil liberties at home.

Fast forward three to five years, and being anti-war just isn’t cool anymore. From the extension of the Patriot Act to increased involvement in Afghanistan, eight years of drone strikes and kill lists could bring us no closer to Dubya.

Though Clinton is known for being equivocal and evasive, conveniently revisiting past positions and flip-flopping them in accordance to what mainstream Democrats would probably expect, she has been surprisingly outspoken in her support for Israel, No Child Left Behind, and conditions increasing work requirements for those on welfare, and spearheaded efforts in the Middle East from supporting the Iraq War to aiding Syrian rebels.

By provoking and stimulating the nation’s festering wounds, the polemical gadfly has left a sharp sting that has become turgidly xenophobic and Islamophobic. Consequently, the outrage over Trump’s comments to turn back non-American Muslims and to build a wall have garnered a lot of attention, and ensuing opposition. Michael Moore came back on the scene last week to express his solidarity with Muslims, and the nation is finally forced to confront a dangerous ideology that, despite resulting in numerous hate crimes and destruction, was seldom recognized as such in the mainstream political atmosphere and with people other than American Muslims and social liberals.

Trump Has No Filter

Which, aside from offering a means of transparent redemption in an allegedly Orwellian era, we can let our guards (and tinfoil hats) down when confronted with a guy that means what he says and says what he means. Remember Carlin’s joke on euphemistic language? Trump obviously has little way with words, but perhaps his kind of rhetorical transparency is needed in a country disengaged and disenchanted with “enhanced interrogation,” and “collateral damage.”

“Kick ’em out” makes so much more sense than implementing “smart enforcement,” a phenomenon unprecedented by the Obama Administration and receiving more long overdue attention from Trump’s unmitigated inflammatory demands to “build a wall” and “send ’em back.”

Euphemisms have never been so culturally pervasive and as dangerous as they have been during the PC-phenomenon. Trump is a trigger-happy caricature poking and jabbing at an overly-triggered politically correct culture. What he says is obviously wrong, but warrants a response that is direct and unequivocal. In contrast, the culture of political correctness, through the codification of censorship, has only contributed to more ignorance. What he says makes many uncomfortable, but exposure and ensuing confrontation with these dangerous ideas is important in recognizing and understanding the very dangerous ideologies that need to be confronted. Trump and social justice warriors are both guilty of committing acts of intellectual terrorism through their polemics, though it is Trump who will allow the majority to come to terms with it.

Meanwhile, the PC police have shielded Hillary of all attacks. As a woman, she can do no wrong. From her inbox to Benghazi, Clinton has mastered the use of armed stealth in a vindictively malicious defense.

Because You Might as Well

Clinton’s top donors include Citigroup, JPMorgan and Chase, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper and Morgan Stanley. Trump has no incentive to accept donations or favors from firms iconic of corporate America because he pretty much is corporate America. So much so, in fact, that Clinton herself was, among others, a beneficiary.

So your choices are Donald Trump or a recipient of Donald Trump.

‘Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn’

Trump’s tagline to “Make America Great Again” harps upon the decades of fear, educational and economic crises, and the resulting legacy of xenophobia, bigotry and violence that has ensued. Trump’s presidency wouldn’t cause any of the things that have already taken place in the country, even under a level headed, liberal president, but would rather reinforce their presence.

Under Clinton, I am just as unconvinced that policies would be implemented to fissure the economic gap, reduce unnecessary economic spending abroad, and improve the status of immigrants, women and minorities in this country. Rather, I believe her presidency would further catalyze apathy and a lack of awareness towards politics while furthering the very neo-liberal right-of-center social, economic, and foreign policies that she truly manifests.

Clinton would have us accepting a right-of-center definition of liberalism. She purports a brand of feminism that embraces the worst aspects of macho militarism, and leadership that follows in the long trodden footsteps of corporatism. But perhaps, in a tragic bout of Socratic irony, the GOP’s biggest gadfly will have Americans reconsidering and examining themselves for a change.