The people of America are tasked with the most important decision of, perhaps, this entire century. The choice could not be more stark, nor the two candidates any more different for the free world stands at a crossroad.
After analyzing both Trump’s and Hillary’s position in two editorials, I now lean, in this final article of a three parts series and personal position statement, on balance, towards, Donald J. Trump.
Unlike blockchain reporting where complexity can be largely understood and the default option leans towards experimentation, the complexity of high politics is often intentionally obfuscated with mistakes and miscalculations potentially terribly devastating. It is not easy, therefore, to be supportive of either candidate because we can never be sure they will do what they say. Once in office, there is no way to hold them to account. As we learned from Obama’s presidency, they can promise the world, deliver the opposite, and still somehow leave office with a fairly high approval rating.
The second candidate to promise the world to our generation is Donald J. Trump. He has put forward a number of measures that are likely to have an effect on laws for pay, such as congressional term limits, a ban for five years in consulting or lobbying for politicians together with campaign finance reforms.
A proposal that is likely to affect our space specifically is Trump’s policy on regulations. He wants to remove all unnecessary regulation, potentially increasing the speed with which blockchain innovation can progress further. Moreover, he wants to cut taxes in the biggest people’s stimulus of all time, potentially making American citizens more comfortable with trying new digital currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum to make use of their newfound wealth.
More subjectively, a number of vocal Trump supporters such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Mike Cernovich are bitcoin users. In a short interview with Cenovich for this editorial after he tweeted about bitcoin, Cernovich stated:
“Freedom is a mindset and BitCoin is freedom. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Trump’s sons hold BitCoin.”
It may well be the case that a Trump presidency would pardon Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Kim Dotcom and other highly influential brave men who gave much to provide us necessary information as Wikileaks’ revelations during the electoral campaign have clearly shown the desirability of such information pipelines, benefiting Trump tremendously who, as president, might return the favor.
The politics of Trump, however, are somewhat new and not quite well understood. A streak of romanticism seems to run across his supporters. The language of emotions seems to be given prevalence over that of logic. Animalistic power politics seems to find preference over more accommodative, co-operative, attitudes. It may well be a rebellion towards what they charge as cultural Marxism, the idea that all cultures – and by implication ideas – are equal, that all humans are equal in all ways, rather than should have equal opportunity or are equal before the law.
The implications of romanticism are well known with 1940s Germany the most recent example of the devastating consequences crowning emotions over logic can have at a state level. There is a reason why discourse aims to be polite, not least because exerting supremacy over others whether through spoken words or otherwise leads to reaction and potentially costly conflict.
Those implications, however, are the extreme end of it, just as arguably current discriminatory policies in favor of certain genders or groups are the extreme end of cultural Marxism. The current abrasive and emotional language of certain individuals, therefore, appears to be more of a reactionary rebellion, a loud statement proclaiming the line is to be held here and no further.
That brings us to another faultline where battles have been fought for centuries. Reports that ISIS is now operating in the Balkans, although at a very tiny scale, awakens all those with knowledge of history to the great potential dangers of a continuation of current policies. Instead of tackling this confrontational and supremacist political ideology head on, for fifteen years an ever growing bigger mess has been created in part by Hillary Clinton herself as Secretary of State.
Another war front has just recently opened now in Yemen with America fighting physically in Arabia and rhetorically/geopolitically with Russia and China. To what end such destruction no one can say, nor why Russia is suddenly our enemy, nor why Clinton wishes to “ring China with missile defense”.
It is time to try something new, to correct the current course and change direction because what has been done for the past fifteen years is clearly not working. The only problem is that we do not really know whether Trump would provide such correction.
The current blind support for Trump by certain elements creates complacency within their ranks and a defensive, rather than critical, attitude. What if Trump cheats us again, what does this generation do then? What if he provides only spectacles and no action?
We should bear in mind that there are only two options. For Hillary, the questions are very different. Would she really bring back the rhetorical threats of nuclear war that so terrorized our parents and grandparents? How many more war fronts would she open in Arabia? Would there be any limit to political corruption in Washington? Would the banks ever stop money printing? How can she govern while being under investigation?
However, it is precisely because it seems a Hillary presidency has little chance as the people of America are unlikely to reward her for the mess she created while Secretary of State just as they dismissed Jeb Bush, that Trump’s candidacy needs closer scrutiny for he is, after all, a billionaire with much wealth and already very powerful.
Would, therefore, his presidency signify the debut of oligarchs out from the shadows to take direct control of power, getting rid of the implicit barriers placed by their operation through elected officials? Who, then, would limit his bulldozing personality?
As always, the ultimate answer is us, the people who, with Trump, appear to have some leverage for he was greatly assisted in his bid by an army of internet meme warriors who might turn those weapons on him and bring him down just as they raised him up.
One hopes, therefore, that once the election is over and if he wins, they become less virused by memes and more balanced in their views. Not blindly support him or take a defensive attitude, but keep him in check where he transgresses and accountable where he fails to deliver.
As a new generation rises, for many, this will be their first taste of politics. If he wins, it would be tempting to declare victory when it has all just begun. Those memes need to continue being used to demand an end to mass surveillance. To demand a breaking up of massive media corporations which have in this election shown a propaganda streak. To stop the money printing that keeps inflating house prices we can no longer afford, placing at risk the foundation of democracy – a strong, home owning, middle class. Overall, to provide a voice so that we are not only heard, but also influence action.
It is because of this potential opportunity that I lean towards Trump. It appears that he can hear us, that there are ways of reaching him, giving voice to this generation and perhaps counterbalancing the corrosive effects of the policies of the past fifteen years.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are solely that of the author and do not represent those of, nor should they be attributed to CCN.com.
Featured image from YouTube/NBC News .
Last modified: March 4, 2021 4:52 PM