The American election year comes alive and this concerns us closely. Our interest goes beyond information. More than as curious inhabitants of the same planet, we Italians, without even knowing it, are interested in the US presidential elections first and foremost as citizens of a State with limited sovereignty. As a sort of 51 piece of that Union to which we have entrusted foreign policy (the economic and the internal are already in Brussels), we are attracted by the next tenant of the White House as an ancestral call. For a bizarre destiny we do not participate in the choice, but we share its emotions.
The most likely challenge seems to be Trump-Clinton, where Clinton is not the ruddy Bill, but his wife Hillary, his having or giving as the case may be.
We do not know who will win. However, we know that the countdown to the alignment of the media on the "global Hillary" has started, the fulcrum of the single thought and the politically correct universally given for good.
After a black President, valid in itself to the point of deserving a preventive Nobel Prize, nothing better than a woman President, sublime synthesis of that imperial marketing ready to use the fashion of the moment in order to leave things as they are, without excluding the possibility to make them worse.
But just as for the African American Nobel Obama, Clinton's canonization is to be expected more in Italy than in the USA, where if he wins he would still be struggling. In fact, you can bet that theformer first lady will win the favor of the Italian virtual suffrages, reaffirming that incredible 90% of sympathies Obama had with the 2012 elections. The disadvantage of not being black would be largely compensated by that of being a woman, with the right feminist pink past meanwhile shifted to Washington's institutional gray. There "Hillary de noantri" in short, it could even reach theen plein in a kind of "Anyway it's better her ..." usually the main symptom of media influences and delegated understanding.
Especially if the opponent was really Trump, the possibility of filling up with the consensus of the Italians would be very realistic. The more the Republican presidents show the handsome appearance of the billionaire entrepreneur, gunslinger and stupid, the more the convergence to the "democratic and good" becomes probable.
Clinton is certainly the group to which the Clinton is already in favor. From the second post-war period onwards, democratic presidents receive more sympathies than Republican ones far beyond merits and demerits. Just think of Truman, the first atomic bomb launcher to survive the judgment of history or to Kennedy, remembered more for Marilyn and Dallas than for having brought America to Vietnam.
Most of all, however, Clinton's husband is an example, who is liked by everyone because he played the saxophone and entertained the interns. Between one recreation and another he was among the co-authors of the rise of the Taliban in Kabul, the birth of Al Qaeda, the development of Islamic fundamentalism between Africa and the Middle East, the freezing of Saddam, the return of the holy war in the Balkans after 400 years (in these hours we talk about it again), of the bombing in '99 of Belgrade, the first European capital to have the honor since 1945. It was he who managed the world for 8 years as President of a lonely Superpower, orphan of War Cold and new enemies. We also owe the wonderful world of peace in which we live today, but it seems that history sometimes forgets itself ...
If the surname and ideological provenance are a guarantee, then Hillary Clinton has really great possibilities to become the 45 President of the United States of America. That the most important man in the world is a woman, he would do during with the times that run after all ...
Inexplicable sympathies aside, it is good to remember, however, who Hillary Clinton, a powerful woman already in rural Arkansas.
Secretary of State in the first mandate Obama (to which the presidential candidacy contended) stood out between the 2009 and the 2013 for a series of genius shots. It was she who insisted on the war in Libya and the elimination of Gaddafi despite (incredible to say!) The contrary opinion of the Pentagon. It was she who buried the 2012 attack on the US embassy in Tripoli so as not to affect Obama's second term campaign. It was she who set up the White House to repeat the Libyan feats in Syria, before leaving the Department in 2013. He had American foreign policy in his hands for at least five years, not counting the years behind the scenes of the second Obama and especially those of her husband Bill.
Behind the bark of human rights (or civil, depending ...), always ready to jump out when arguments stagnate, hides a mix of cynicism and incompetence made unassailable by her being a liberal woman.
Clinton is the leader of exporters of rights and democracy, always ready to profess an ethical superiority inaccessible to us mere mortals. It is the ideal advertising vehicle for a model low profile of imposition from above. As it was for the cornifying husband, it represents the most dangerous face of power, because it lacks the caricatured lines in which the Republicans shine for decades. To the clever Nixon, to the Reagan cow boy, to the Bush petrol-vaccine it is not known why but it is always preferable what the ethical-rock newspapers and TVs decide to prefer. But the world disasters are the same.
We citizens of a country that observes, in our own small way, we limit ourselves to bite by participating with the heart.
With our France or Spain, provided if magna ... we are an important litmus paper to understand how the world goes. As a colony of reduced sovereignty, we are an excellent example of a flock, ready to settle in line with the global flows of which we are victims and promoters. Thus blinded by a presumed freedom, we end up being architects of our own amputations.
Waiting for Clinton, let us remember that the genius of the most dangerous dictatorships is right here: to make men believe they are free.
(Photo: web)
