The liberal media’s allegations of Russian involvement in U.S. elections should be analyzed through a Russian perspective. Put simply, which candidate will be more desirable for Russian interests? I would first like to analyze a Trump presidency. The ‘Trump Movement’ is about more than just turning the White House into the Gold House, draining the swamp of corruption, proving the establishment media’s influence can be beaten, or building a massive wall with gold T’s every mile. Its a cultural uprising that carries serious implications for future generations. Americanism, patriotism, respect for the anthem & flag, and an attachment to the values that made this country great –our constitutional freedoms and liberties, and our free-market economics- are all on the ballot this year. A Trump presidency will reinforce these values, reversing the damage done to them through the past decade of top-down liberalization. An American future for American children will be preserved, and thus a major competitor to the Russian Federation will be re-energized.
Yet, Mr. Trump has also claimed that his administration would be friendly with Russia, a major nuclear power. A Trump presidency would mean a temporary gain for Russian interests particularly in the Middle East. However, it is important to notice the ultimate (yet underreported) implication of a Trump presidency for American influence in the world stage. The U.S. would become once more what it had been before 2008. Energized, innovative, dominant, powerful, economically enterprising, in control of its borders and -most importantly- rooted in the values that made it the most powerful nation in the planet. In other words, Mr. Trump’s politics would reverse our current decline, and be the American equivalent of pure realpolitik through a revival of the ‘Manifest Destiny’ spirit.
Consider the future of America under Hillary Clinton, with Russian interests at mind. Clinton’s America would undoubtedly be a continuation of the past eight years’ failures, perpetuating polarization among ethno-racial, religious, and social groups. Our failure to instill American values to our millennial generation, the erosion of the first and second amendments, the open angst of the liberal left for flag and anthem in schools and football games, should bring ominous thoughts to mind considering that it was this same liberalization which broke the back of the USSR. A Clinton presidency’s greatest domestic implication will also end up being the greatest foreign policy implication as it will effect our future generations irreversibly.
As a binational who travels to Russia visa-free fairly often, while living mostly in the United States, the differences in political culture among the youth of these countries is very uncomfortable to talk about. In Russia, I see a youth that is raised for a sustainable future. Youth are taught the price that has been paid for the ‘motherland’. Walking through public squares, or by schools, I often run into exhibitions where students display battle scenes from WWII, the Space Race, and other generally patriotic themes. Students write poems, and sing songs at that crucial young age to ingrain a sense of devotion, loyalty, and debt to their previous generations that had actually been through those events.
Russian youth are raised to sustain Russia. While our children sit in classrooms learning a politically correct revision of their history, the curriculum of which is obsessed with labelling our own country as ‘imperialist’ and ‘colonialist’, Russian children are learning about Russia’s greatness. Russian expansion throughout Eurasia, achievements of the USSR, Eastern traditions, and family values are celebrated in Russian schools. While American students are being given participation prizes, Russian students are taught by their teachers how to quickly take apart and re-assemble assault rifles, as well as how to use them. Russian students are still made to conduct war-drills, not to mention conscription for young men, granting basic life skills most American males are never exposed to. Russia is raising its generations to be Russians. We, on the other hand, are raising ‘world citizens’. Not only does Russia produce the generations it needs, it also ensures their cultural existence. Immigration to Russia is limited to culturally similar nationalities. Fluency in Russian, a family tie to Russia, and ten years of residence are the citizenship requirements. Unlike the U.S., Russia does not tolerate illegal immigration or migration from dangerous parts of the planet.
A Clinton presidency would mean a continuation of our decline not only domestically, but also in the international arena. The effects of uncontrolled borders, possible citizenship for 12 million illegal migrants, would not only encourage more illegal immigration, but would also result in a plummeting of immigration quality. The cultural and political face of America would be changed forever. Just as it did in Europe, liberalism, multiculturalism, and the continued loss of family values would bring our country to a point that would pacify our competitive edge in world politics. The outcome of mass-immigration, a culturally heterogeneous America to the point of demographic fragmentation, would make it practically impossible to maintain any opposition to Russian interests around the world. In the long run, the ultimate winner in a Clinton presidency would be Russia. It is a waiting game, where as long as the Russians maintain their nation, and as long as we continue to dismantle our values, we will continue to lose. If the Trump Movement fails to take the White House this Tuesday, Russia will have lost this battle in particular, yet will have won the war overall.