The Lesser Evil
As U.S. voters grew more polarized from one another for the 2016 election, what if the solution to bring us together was as simple as listening to a writer from our old colonial daddy, Great Britain? U.K.-based writer, Omar Aysha, takes us on a frightfully comedic, and painfully accurate, journey in his essay, "Hitler or Queen Victoria for President?" while Benjamin King's all-American cowboy portrait reminds us of a country united in cinema.
Hitler or Queen Victoria for president?
by Omar Aysha
At face value the American Trump shares many of the German Hitler’s most obvious attributes. His main promise is to restore economic glory. He’s a demagogue running to rule a powerful country, publicly blaming all its woes on an ethnic minority. He’s also an ego-maniacal hothead and narcissist who encourages violence by his followers against minorities.
But if Trump is Hitler, what of Hillary Clinton? Even though her supporters recognize her faults, she’s presented as cool and calculating, experienced in the ways of power, the lesser of two evils, a safer pair of hands. But those hands have already had blood on them, both foreign and local. And so what if she’s cool and calculating, do those qualities make a less dangerous individual? Then it dawned on me who she resembles … Queen Victoria.
The Queen was obviously royalty; the Clintons, outside of movie stars, are as close as you get to royalty in the US. The Queen took over then extended an empire till the sun didn’t set on it. While Hillary has never been in charge per se, she’s been instrumental in furthering the American empire, and her plans will continue for total spectrum US domination if she inherits the power promised her. The Queen was a model of civility, yet an undoubted racist who viewed the commonwealth citizens as inferior fodder. Hillary’s memoirs and quotes tell us what she thinks of Blacks and Muslims, not to mention the crime bill she championed that make black Americans cash cows to the prison industry. And yes, Hillary has a very civilized PR friendly face. The Queen was also plugged into a worldwide diplomatic network, just like Clinton.
So if we accept my premise, who’s worse, Hitler or the Queen? I’ll rephrase, who did more damage?
Hitler obviously caused massive direct damage to the world in a relatively short period. The Queen’s empire can be argued to have caused less direct damage, but over a much longer period. What’s more important though is the indirect damage caused; which can still be seen to this day. It’s why they’re called “developing” nations, they should actually be called “over exploited by colonial powers.” Indeed, they’re still exploited; colonialism hasn’t ended.
What about what happened inside their home countries though? The Queen brought prosperity to the country right? Well yes, but only the upper classes truly benefited, the poor were exploited.
OK, but at least they weren’t decimated the way most Germans were during the war, right? Yes, Germany was decimated, but we often overlook the fact that Hitler brought about an economic revolution before he went off the rails. And you know what, I live in the UK, and it now economically trails Germany by a long way. We’d love to have their economy, instead our politicians and elite still harbour illusions of grandeur on the world stage. At home their policies still screw the poor. Germany on the other hand, while it has its faults, it’s the one taking in refugees.
OK, calm down, you say Hillary could conceivably cause more damage than The Donald, but you forgot one thing: the nuclear bomb. We don’t want his finger on the button. The analogy you used falls down in that regard, because the Queen and Hitler both didn’t have access to nuclear weapons.
Fair point. But even here, we don’t have to look far for another likeness. The only leader to have ever used a nuclear weapon, and against civilian targets, was a cold, calculating American. It’s even argued that when he used it there was no actual need to use it, the war was already won, and it was merely a show of power. So again, cold and calculating doesn’t mean less blood thirsty or willing to use nuclear weapons. Remember Hillary has already threatened Iran and is dancing for a fight with Russia.
So what am I saying? Vote for Trump? Don’t be daft. Both candidates are reprehensible. What I’m saying is that just because someone is an obvious racist and blowhard is irrelevant. A cold calculating civilised individual is as capable of damaging things.
Speaking as a Middle Easterner, I know which candidate scares me more: the one who’s already good at killing us.