District of Corruption

The Worse, the Better

Although there is still more than a year left to go until the United States goes to the polls in 2012, the campaign is already in full swing. Both parties are gearing up for the coming congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential primaries, and national and international media are engaging in polling, punditry, and speculation. The election, like those before it, poses a problem for the non-aligned Right in the United States and abroad, whose members almost always look upon both of the United States' major parties with equal disdain. Should we support the Republicans as the lesser of two evils? Should we put our weight, such as it is, behind a quixotic candidate of the Ron Paul or Constitution Party variety? Or should we simply throw up our hands in disgust and opt out of the whole affair, not supporting any candidate at all? Needless to say, none of these options seem very appealing. However, they also appear to be the only options available to us. This appearance is, I think, mistaken. The lessons of history hint at a more attractive possibility.

More specifically, it is my firm conviction that the European and American far Right should do everything in its power to ensure that Barack Obama wins a second term in 2012.

In the past decades, second terms have rarely been good for American Presidents. George W. Bush is the most recent and obvious example, but not the only one. In 2004, Bush, by then already fairly unpopular, narrowly won a second term in office, largely thanks to the Democrats' political ineptitude and John Kerry's lack of charisma. Five years and a midterm defeat later, he left office as one of the most unpopular Presidents in recent memory, handing over to his successor an economy in free-fall, a record deficit, and two catastrophic foreign military entanglements. Other Presidents have also been plagued by scandals and crises in their second terms. Bill Clinton had the Lewinsky affair and his subsequent impeachment, and also had to contend with a hostile Republican Congress. Ronald Reagan's popularity suffered as a a result of high unemployment, an economic crisis, and questions over his age and mental acuity. Nixon, of course, had Watergate.

Therefore, it seems fair to assume that a 2012 reelection will be a Pyrrhic victory for President Obama, especially considering the present state of affairs. “Hope” and “change” will lose what's left of their luster and be exposed for the empty platitudes they are. Assuming that the Republicans retain a House majority (and also possibly win one in the Senate), little legislation will be passed, thus making both parties seem inefficacious and obstructive. Support for Congress, the Presidency, and both of the major parties will continue to drop, and barring a miracle, Obama will leave office in 2017 as loathed as George W. Bush was in 2009. Increasingly frustrated, more Americans will begin to look for answers outside the trodden paths of the Establishment and the two-party system... We must work to provide them answers.

Now consider another possible outcome. A moderately unpopular Obama is narrowly defeated by Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, or another Republican of the same stripe. There is an illusion of change. Stability is retained, the wax and wane of two-party politics continues, and the population remains docile enough to once again push revolutionary change out of the realm of the possible.

Given that these two broad scenarios are the only realistic ones, it seems obvious to me which one we should plump for. Another disastrous Presidency--particularly one which started out with such high hopes--will hopefully further discredit the American Empire and its ruling class and give greater credibility--and a perhaps a greater platform--to the non-aligned Right. If we on the Right are nothing else, we are realists. Our goal is to dismantle the current American establishment, and in the short term, the most realistic means to that end is to let the Obama presidency ruin itself.