Social Action Australia (SAA) has shifted its stance to now reservedly endorse the Trump-Vance Republican presidential ticket for the November 2024 presidential election. This shift in position is made on the basis that the GOP presidential ticket is the ‘less of the two evils’ because the Democrat presidential ticket of Vice-President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is too left-wing. Nevertheless, the Harris-Walz ticket will probably win this November because it is being accepted as ideologically centrist.
This projection of political centrism by the Harris-Walz campaign is disingenuous but the Democrats will probably ‘get away’ with it because the majority of Americans support political centrism.
The fact is that opinion polls conveyed that up until June this year an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want to vote for either President Joseph (‘Joe’) Biden or former president, Donald J Trump. This consequently created the groundwork for excitement and relief to be generated when Vice-President Kamala Harris stepped into replace President Joe Biden as the Democrat presidential nominee.
This switch however was a manifestation of ‘wish-fulfilment’ on the part of the Democrats. Wish fulfilment is where there is a belief that because you desire something it will consequently occur (Similar to the ‘Cargo Cult’ mentality of Pacific Islanders that was prevalent in the Second World War.). However, as the evil Vladimir Lenin astutely pointed out we must learn that there is a distinction between hope and expectation!
Nevertheless, the relief which millions of Americans felt because President Biden withdrew in favour of Vice-President Harris has led to wish fulfilment impact on the campaign. A reinforcement of this wish fulfilment was engineered at the Democratic National Convention in August when former president, Barack Obama and his wife Michelle spoke of ‘hope’. The Obamas have previously campaigned on the theme of ‘hope’ but this emotion by itself rarely facilitates achievement.
Why Action is more Important than Hope
It is true that the Obamas have promoted hope in a context of self-empowerment. However, this offer of hope has been made on the basis that what you want will necessarily occur by simply voting Democrat. When such an intangible offer is made based on wish fulfilment there should be no subsequent surprise when the actual results fall short of expectations.
The Obama administration (2009-2017) fell short of its initial promise. Millions of Americans were not lifted out of poverty and the United States position in the world order vis a vis mainland China and Russia declined. This was reflected by communist mainland China successfully and illegally asserting itself in the South China Sea via a military deployment that ignored Obama mandated ‘red lines that were not to be crossed and Russia occupying Crimea which until 2014 was part of Ukraine.
The main positive domestic achievement of the Obama administration was the introduction in 2010 of the Affordable Care Act (‘Obamacare’). The passage of this legislation was mainly due to the determination and political leadership of the then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nevertheless, the political polarization which ensued because of Obamacare helped consolidate the division of America into Republican ‘red’ states and Democrat ‘blue’ states. This has occurred despite Barack Obama’s sterling rhetoric advocating national unity.
The sense of national discord enabled a maverick outsider such as Donald Trump to win the Republican presidential nomination and the presidency in 2016. The presidential campaign which Donald Trump conducted in 2016 was essentially intuitive and ad hoc. Trump was not at that time supported by the GOP’s political mainstream (‘the establishment’). Nevertheless, due to Trump’s Nietzschean determination to return to the presidency he has paradoxically moved to the political centre by reconciling with the GOP’s political establishment.
This reproachment has been manifested by non-Make America Great Again (MAGA) GOP operatives integrating into the Trump campaign to see that it is run in a more disciplined and systematic way. There has also been a policy shift by Trump due to his reproachment with his party’s mainstream with him moving away from his previous and disgraceful action of helping to block military aid to Ukraine by Congress. That the US Congress in 2024 voted in favour of needed and deserved military aid going to Ukraine was due to the courage of centrist Republicans and Democrats.
Why Political Centrism Counters Isolationism
An outstanding Republican who is helping to move American foreign and defence policy away from the acute dangers of isolationism is Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. He has previously and courageously spoken out in support of the interests of the people of Hong Kong. If there is to be a second Trump presidency Senator Rubio will have to ensure that the United States and its allies, such as Australia and Japan, will help defend the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan against any future Chinese communist aggression.
It is therefore a pity that Donald Trump did not select Marco Rubio as his vice-presidential running mate because an ‘establishment’ Republican such as the Florida senator would have orientated a possible second Trump presidency away from isolationism. To engage in such a political battle would help ‘blood’ Senator Rubio to contribute to making him an excellent (and much needed) future American presidential candidate.
Indeed, the two greatest American presidents of the twentieth century; Frankin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Ronald Reagan were both blooded to prepare the way for their respective presidencies. FDR as a polio survivor and Governor of New York (1929 to 1933) went onto successfully navigate the United States through the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Second World Ward during the 1940s.
Ronald Reagan (who had been a successful Governor of California between 1967 and 1975) was blooded by his narrowly unsuccessful bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 1976 against President Gerald R Ford. The role that the Reagan administration (1981 to 1989) fulfilled in ultimately bringing down Soviet communism was vital.
Senator Rubio may be blooded in the future by opposing the far-left policies of a possible Harris - Walz administration. Even though Vice-President Harris is now an avowedly centrist political leader who ostensibly wants to support the middle class her selection of Governor Walz as her vice-presidential running mate suggests otherwise. Governor Walz is a hard left politician who is ideologically in sync with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Had Vice-President Harris selected a genuine centrist such as Governor Joshua (‘Josh’) Schapiro of Pennsylvania then this might have been an indication that Kamala Harris is a bona fide political centrist or at the very least really moving in a moderate philosophical direction.
As a supporter of Israel, Governor Schapiro might have helped ensure that the Jewish state is supported by the United States against the existential threat that Iran poses to Israel. Furthermore, a Vice-President Schapiro might also have helped ensure that the ROC in Taiwan was supported against a possible invasion by communist mainland China.
Afghanistan and the Politics of Abandonment
At any rate Kamala Harris’s record as vice-president does not inspire confidence that she will as president support threatened nations. The vice-president has admitted to giving her approval to the United States’ precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. Not only did thirteen American service personnel lose their lives in the pull-out, but forty-five million Afghans were subsequently condemned to now live under the primitive, brutally barbaric and misogynist rule of the Taliban.
All the United States had to do in order to avoid this horrific scenario was to have provided the government of Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani with air support so that the Taliban could have been fended off. It must also be said that the preceding Trump administration negotiated with the Taliban to in effect abandon the Afghani people to them.
Nevertheless, it was the Biden administration which shamefully abandoned Afghanistan. A deal between the Taliban and the Biden administration may have been reached whereby these guerillas were allowed to take power in return for their breaking with Islamic State (IS) so that Afghanistan would not again be utilized as a base for international terrorist operations. Any deal struck between the United States and extremist forces such as the Taliban should as a matter of principle be avoided particularly when this involves betraying an ally.
While the preceding Trump administration may have entered into negotiations with the Taliban, Donald Trump is still correct when he says that the United States retreat from Afghanistan probably emboldened Vladimir Putin to subsequently invade Ukraine the following February.
It should be pointed out that President Biden’s initial re-action to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was to offer Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky
air transport to the Polish capital of Warsaw. This offer was possibly made by President Biden on the basis that this would help the Russians quicky conquer Ukraine.
If the above scenario is correct this would indicate that President Biden was prepared to ‘sell out’ the more or less free world to Russia, communist China and their allies. This possible pattern of American betrayal of her allies has also occurred with regard to the Biden administration inexplicably terminating US military aid to Saudi Arabia concerning this kingdom’s fight against the Iranian backed Yemini Houthi rebels.
Most alarmingly the Biden-Harris administration eased sanctions against Iran so that the United States lost its leverage to prevent Tehran from developing its nuclear arsenal which now has the capacity to threaten America and Israel. This appeasement of Iran has also resulted in Tehran utilizing its proxies of Hamas (based in the Gaza Strip) and Hezbollah (based in southern Lebanon) to attack Israel so that the Middle East now tetters on the brink of a regionwide war.
Should there be a Harris administration in place next year which continues the Biden administration’s appeasement policies then Israel might very well step into the void to utilize her nuclear weapons to defend itself. It does not need to be pointed out that the adverse environmental and atmospheric ramifications of a possible nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran could endanger the world.
Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that Israel in 1981 under Prime Minister Menachem Begin militarily took out an Iraqi nuclear reactor which was possibly being used to develop nuclear weapons.
The Alignment Between Political Steel and Political Centrism
It is an impossibility that the Biden - Harris administration will take military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Indeed, the interesting question emerges as to who is really running the United States due to President Biden’s serious cognitive decline? It is possible that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who is the real ‘Iron Lady’ of American politics) is now exercising her power to ensure that Isreal and America’s Arab allies are now being protected by the United States?
It is therefore an alarming question as to what might have occurred if President Biden was actually in control of the White House? The United States policy of calculated betrayal of her allies might have continued unabated. Indeed, had the Ukrainians not successfully resisted the Russian invasion of their nation then the world might now be under an even greater threat of Sino-Russian domination.
Why the United States must not Betray The ROC in Taiwan
Despite Ukraine’s effective resistance to Russian aggression there is still the prospect of a communist Chinese invasion of the ROC in Taiwan. Should communist China’s president Xi Jing-ping order an invasion of the ROC in Taiwan then the world’s computer systems might be massively disrupted because this island produces over eighty percent of the world’s microchips! Therefore, even if a future Harris administration was to betray American allies such as Australia and Japan by refusing to help defend the ROC in Taiwan, the US economy would also suffer tremendously.
The communist Chinese military should, if need be, apply its political power to restrain President Xi. It should be remembered that the Chinese communist military acted unilaterally to remove the Gang of Four from power in October 1976. Furthermore, it was due to the backing of the Chinese military that Deng Xiao-ping emerged as China’s paramount leader in late 1978 and that the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 1989 was carried out by the army despite Deng’s deep reservations.
Deng could not have re-emerged as mainland China’s strongman in late 1991 had the military not backed him. This renewed support was given to Deng because the Chinese military was alarmed by the disillusion of the Soviet Union at this time. China’s generals therefore gave their support to Deng reviving market economic reform so as to avoid a Soviet style implosion.
At each juncture at which the Chinese military politically intervened it was undertaken on the basis of not directly assuming power in order to avoid the potentially fatal pitfalls of warlordism that had previously operated in pre-communist China.
It should also be pointed out that the ROC government in Taiwan of President Lai Ching -Te (William Lai) should not declare the island to be independent of China by no longer constitutionally styling this country as ‘The Republic of China’. Such a constitutional abandonment might ensure that the Chinese communist military gives its support to an invasion of Taiwan. It is therefore best that Taiwan continues as the Republic of China under the aegis of the pre-communist 1947 Chinese constitution.
Concerning the ROC in Taiwan, Nancy Pelosi showed great courage when as Speaker of the House of Representatives she visited this island in August 2022. This American stateswoman also displayed political integrity by exercising her power to ensure that the United States still supported Israel despite tension between Wahington and Jerusalem during the Obama and Biden presidencies.
However, should Vice-President Kamala Harris become president it is an open question as to whether Nancy Pelosi will be able to exercise a moderating political influence in either a domestic or a foreign policy context. This prediction is derived from the vice-president’s selection of Governor Tim Walz as her running mate and the disingenuousness to date of Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign.
Biden Economics Bidding Down Wages
Vice-President Harris has based her presidential campaign on the theme of strengthening the middle class. She has also spoken out in support of trade unions being able to freely organise so that workers can be lifted into the middle class.
However, working Americans have been betrayed by the Biden-Harris administration’s open border policy in which over twenty million refugees have been allowed to enter the United States since the end of the Trump presidency. A calculated ramification of this open border policy has been to bid down the price of labour – which is the essence of Biden economics- by having an excess of employees. The consequent reduction in wages has temporarily helped keep prices down for middle class Americans and is also a reason why big business is currently making substantial donations to the Democrats.
While the American middle class is currently economically benefitting from Biden economics the long-term effects of this policy approach are unsustainable. This is because
billions of dollars will eventually have to be spent on these undocumented migrants and their families in terms of higher taxes ‘down the road’ which the middle class will have to pay for. Biden economics is also unfair on working and economically vulnerable Americans because resources, such as social security spending upon which many of them depend, will eventually become strained due to the massive migrant intake.
These long-term structural flaws in Biden economics make it untenable for Kamala Harris to fulfil her campaign pledge to build an ‘opportunity economy’ for either the American middle class or the American working class because what this open border policy- which is the main facilitator of Biden economics- is really intended to achieve in the long term is to build up future voting bases for Democrat politicians. This is why there are so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ for these new migrants so that they will eventually, as future American citizens (and consequently voters), tip the balance in favour of the Democrats in local, state and national elections.
It therefore can be expected that a Kamala Harris presidency will not stop the unregulated inflow of migrants into the United States until there has been a shift in favour of the Democrats with regard to voting patterns. Furthermore, and consequently, a possible Harris administration could well advocate ‘electoral reform’ by seeking to abolish the Electoral College so that the Democrats will consolidate their anticipated political advantage as a result of these changes to the popular vote.
Vice-President Harris, in a highlight of her acceptance speech at the August 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, pledged that she would be a president who placed her country before her personal interests and those of her party. Her actions with regard to supporting an open immigration policy as the so-called ‘border czar’ suggest otherwise.
Why Disingenuousness Generates Political Polarization
Furthermore, the campaigning claims that the vice-president have made against Donald Trump and the Republicans are disingenuous and as such call into question Kamala Harris’s honesty with the American people.
The Democrats and America’s mainstream media are warning against a so-called ‘Project 2025’ which they falsely claim is Donald Trump’s secret agenda should he return to office. Project 2025 was drawn up by the right-wing think tank, The Heritage Foundation. There is no credible evidence that Donald Trump is an adherent of Project 2025 which seeks to extensively re-organise the executive branch of America’s federal government to make it more politically partisan.
Concerning the policy positions of establishment Republicans, it is true that they are unfortunately vehemently opposed to public health care. However, Donald Trump is not an establishment Republican! Trump’s support among millions of economically vulnerable Americans which he has garnered due to the Biden-Harris’s open border policy will be jeopardized should he repeal The Affordable Care Act.
The Harris - Walz ticket has also campaigned strongly on the right of American employees to undertake union organising and their right to join a trade union. The implication of this avowedly pro-union stance is that a future Trump presidency would be a threat to union rights. Nothing could be further from the truth because Donald Trump – who has been endorsed by the leadership of the Teamsters Union - needs the support of American wage earners whose socio-economic interests are now being severely undermined by Biden economics.
Kamala Harris has also falsely claimed that Donald Trump will support national legislation to ban abortion and create the position of a National Co-Ordinator who will have the power to monitor pregnancies to ensure that they are carried to full term. Trump -who is possibly not genuinely pro-life- has already paid his political price to America’s pro-life movement via the appointment of three constitutionally conservative Supreme Court justices when he was previously president.
The United States pro-life movement will subsequently focus on state legislatures to overturn abortion. A possible future President Donald Trump will probably give his support to pro-life campaigns at a state level but to claim that he will go further than this when he has made no such policy undertakings is disingenuous.
However, the Harris -Walz ticket will continue to make extraordinarily negative campaign claims against Donld J Trump no matter how unfounded. Such claims, which have already been cited in this article, unfortunately have credence. This is due to the rhetorical excesses of this former president, the most notorious of which was the public support he gave to the January 6th, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill opposing certification by the Senate of the 2020 presidential election result. The claim which Trump made that these election results were rigged was also ludicrous.
The Transformation of Donald Trump and the United States
These rhetorical excesses by Donald J Trump should be seen as part of the bizarre process by which he is transforming American politics and by which this former president is himself being transformed. Donald Trump needs the support of millions of economically marginalized Americans if he is to regain the presidency. Due to the social ill effects -effects of Biden economics, Trump is the potential catalyst by which the Republican Party can permanently gain the support of millions of American wage earners, the economically poorer sections of society and of organised labour.
Donald Trump therefore has the potential should he return to office to be a twenty-first century equivalent of a Teddy Roosevelt, who was president between 1901 and 1909. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican who was pro-union while being very supportive of small business.
By contrast because Biden economics is undermining the socio-economic position of working-class Americans, Kamala Harris is now trying to cultivate middle class support. Middle class America should not be fooled because the immigration policies of the Biden-Harris administration are already expanding the population base of the American poor. The middle class will consequently have to pay the socio-economic cost for this tragic expansion of the American poor. Kamala Harris is therefore playing for time so that the social ill-effects of Biden economics do not eventually become apparent to either middle class or economically poorer Americans.
Unfortunately, the Harris -Walz campaign is achieving a political balance of cultivating both middle and working class support due to reservations concerning Donald Trump.
Moving to the Pollical Centre with Donald Trump
It is true that if the process by which Trump is both transforming and being transformed by the changing dynamics of American politics is to be positive, then establishment Republicans such as Florida’s Senator Marco Rubio will have to step up should there be a second Trump presidency. Non-MAGA Republicans, such as Senator Rubio, must ensure that millions of illegal migrants are not deported while also still seeing to it that the United States’ borders are secured.
By contrast should there be a Kamala Harris presidency it will be virtually impossible to expeditiously rein in illegal migration. This will be due to the Democrat desire to fundamentally change American voting patterns which will be derived from unfettered migration. It will therefore be untenable for Kamala Harris to fulfil her campaign pledge to build the middle class by creating an ‘opportunity economy’ when the pool of poor people in the United States will continue to expand. This will be due to the politically calculated migration policies being pursued by the Democrats.
Therefore, SAA with reservations, advocates that Americans vote for the Trump -Vance presidential ticket in the genuine belief that the United States will transition to a centrist political course by ending the manipulation of migration policy for socio-economic and political purposes.