On the morning following the death of Fidel, my wife Olga Lidia visited her family, who live on the outskirts of the City of Havana.  She reported a quietness in the streets, and a profound sadness among the people.

     I too am profoundly sad.  Although I was not surprised by the death of Fidel, it has deeply affected my emotions.

     Television interviews with citizens in the streets and commentaries by persons in positions of authority are full of expressions of sadness, but also of pledges of commitment to the principles taught to us by Fidel.  

     What are the teachings of Fidel?  Fidel taught us that a just and democratic world is possible, a world in which the sovereignty and equality of all nations is respected, overcoming the colonial structures that are the foundation of the global capitalist economy.  

     He taught us that all persons, regardless of color, class or gender, possess the inalienable rights to education, health care, cultural formation, and political participation.  

     Fidel taught us that the state has an active and decisive role to play in the economic and social development of the nation.  

     He taught us that true revolutionaries are great patriots, but that revolutionary patriots also are guided by a spirit of internationalism and solidarity among all peoples, which can be the foundation of relations among nations.  

    Fidel taught us that the revolution above all is spiritual, by which he meant commitment to understanding truth and doing justice.  

    And Fidel taught us that such principles constitute the essence of socialism.

     Fidel possessed exceptional political capacities, which were evident in: the attack on Moncada Barracks on July 26, 1956, bringing the Cuban revolutionary struggle to a new stage; his formation of a guerrilla army, which brought down the U.S.-supported dictatorship in two years; his leadership in forging the political unity of the popular sectors, parties and ideologies; his recognition of the need for decisive steps by the revolutionary government in defense of the concrete needs of the people; his leadership in the development of an alternative concept of popular power and popular democracy, an advanced alterative to representative democracy; his leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement, in defense of the Third World proposal for a New International Economic Order and in opposition to the neoliberal project of the global powers; the formulation of the policies of the Special Period, demonstrating a structural adjustment that responds to the needs of the people and not to corporate profits; his recognition of the need for unity among Latin American and Caribbean the nations, peoples, and political and social organizations; and his leadership of the Cuban nation as it incorporated itself into the renewed Third World project and the process of Latin American and Caribbean unity (see “Fidel Castro dies at 90” 11/26/2016; scroll down).

     In appreciation of these exceptional qualities, the people have been filing yesterday and today in various designated places throughout the island, passing by images and quotations of the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution.  My friend Juan, whom I had met in an academic event in 1994, had called me to join a group of students and teachers as it was leaving the University of Havana, and I incorporated myself into the group.  It was a long line to the José Martí Memorial in the Plaza of the Revolution, taking three hours before we could pass the photos and quotations of Fidel.  

     As we waited, Juan introduced me to an old blind man, a former teacher.  Responding to the old man’s question, I explained that I had been employed to teach sociology, but I had no respect for disciplinary boundaries, and thus I studied political economy, history and philosophy as well.  Being a philosopher, the old man wanted to know of my interest in this field.  I explained that as a young man, I had been taught by black nationalists, who possessed an understanding of the modern world fundamentally different from the perspective that I had been previously taught at the university by white social scientists.  The awareness of these contradictory forms of understanding provoked my interest in epistemological questions, specifically the relation of social position to understanding.  He asked me where I learned this, and when I answered Chicago, we agreed that this had its logic, inasmuch as Chicago was a center for black nationalist thought.

     Juan’s students seemed so very young, more like niñas than young women.  I commented to Juan that, in his old age, he had become a teacher of niñas and the friend of the old and the blind.  He commented that the old blind man had been his most important teacher, very demanding and bringing out his best.  

      After the file, Juan and I went to my apartment, where Olga Lidia attended to us.  She had arranged through a friend to purchase beer through a private supplier, since the stores and bars were not selling alcoholic beverages during the rites for Fidel.  She cooked and served us dinner.  She conversed with Juan so that he felt at home, but she also spent time contemplating the streets of Havana from the balcony, giving us the privacy to have our discussions.  

     I have protested in the past Olga Lidia’s constant attention to my needs and comforts, but she insists, maintaining that this is how she expresses her love, and I have learned to lovingly accept it.  She often makes insightful commentaries concerning the faults of my friends, and I once responded, “My friends have their defects.  But they are my friends, and I need to have friends.”  “Of course,” she said, “and my friends too have their defects.”

     Juan and I spent a good part of the evening in discussion, drinking the beer that Olga Lidia thoughtfully had provided.  We talked of the fascist tendencies of Trump, and we speculated concerning his political alliances: whether he would ally himself with the military-industrial complex, or with the business elite of non-military commerce and industry, such as real estate, tourism, transportation and renewable energy.  We agreed that the power of the military-industrial complex could be challenged only by the united support of the people, and Trump has the support of only a sector of the people, mostly those manipulated by his scapegoating messages.  We further agreed that the United States needs a true party of the Left, capable of gaining the confidence of the people through an informed, comprehensive and global proposal, thus obtaining the necessary unity of all of the sectors of the people, including the current Trump followers as well as those scapegoated in his discourses.  Such popular unity would be necessary for checking the power of the great corporations and the military-industrial complex, thus making it possible to change the direction of the nation.

     We talked of a paper on Pan-Africanism in Brazil in the 1970s, presented at a recent academic event by a young woman of Africa descent from the United States.  We agreed that Pan-Africanism was an important progressive force during its height in the 1920s and its renewed manifestations in the 1960s and 1970s.  It was especially strong in the English colonies and settler societies, in which Africans and Africa descendants were totally excluded and exploited, but identification with the oppressor was expected.  In this context, the Pan-Africanist and black nationalist call to an international unity of the colonized in opposition to colonial and neocolonial structures of global domination was an important ideological and political message.  Pan-Africanism, black nationalism in the United States, Latin American dependency theory, African socialism, Arab socialism, and Confusion nationalism together established the intellectual foundation for the formulation of the world-systems perspective by the great U.S. sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, establishing the world-system as the unit of analysis, appreciating from below the perspective of the colonized, thus recognizing its colonial foundations.  But nowadays, with international solidarity of the peoples in opposition to the neocolonial world-system taken as a given, the most important advances in the development of an alternative and more just world-system have been forged by the unity of the people in each nation, overcoming ethnic, religious and gender differences.  In the context of today’s struggle, racial identification can be a divisive force.  Indeed, U.S. imperialism today seeks to use racial identification in Cuba as a strategy for undermining the unity of the people.  My friend Juan noted that, in his view, the young African-American woman was limited in her understanding, and was not driven by a pernicious intent.

     We discussed Cuban television commentary on Syria, and the criticism of it by a Palestinian intellectual who has been living for many years in Cuba.  Our Palestinian friend maintains that the Cuban TV commentary is oversimplified, for it ignores the interests of other regional nations, including Turkey, Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia, focusing on U.S. intervention.  While recognizing the validity of these comments, Juan and I agreed that the discourse of Cuban news commentary is essentially correct: The United States has identified the Syrian government as evil because Syria has sought alliance with Russia and Iran, thus hoping to establish a counterforce to U.S. political and economic interests in the region.  

      And so our struggle continues.  We continue on our journey of seeking to deepen our understanding, so that we can better teach: Juan teaching his niños, and I teaching through my blog and other writings.  And so it is with the world, each will continue to make a small contribution to the creation of that more just, democratic and sustainable world that Fidel believed is possible.  Fidel remains, and always will be, present; inspiring us by his example and teaching us through his words.  

     As expressed by Carlos Alberto Valido Castillo, President of the Municipal Assembly of Cruces, Cienfuegos, in 2006: “Fidel is eternal. He will physically die, but he always is going to be here with us.  His analysis, his teachings, and his spirit of struggle always will be with us.”

     Fidel has completed his assigned mission of teaching, leading and inspiring the peoples of Cuba and the world.  He passes today to become the eternal comandante of all the peoples in struggle for social justice.

     Cuban television this morning is announcing the opportunities that the people will have to pay tribute to the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution.  In the City of Havana, the people will be able to pass by Fidel’s remains in the José Martí Memorial of the Plaza of the Revolution all day Monday and on Tuesday morning, culminating in a memorial ceremony at noon on Tuesday, November 29. Subsequently, Fidel’s ashes will be transported along the route of the “Caravan of Liberty” of January 3 to January 8, 1959, when the triumphant Rebel Army, led by Fidel, marched from the eastern city of Santiago de Cuba to Havana, tumultuously received by the people; the historic caravan is re-enacted each year.  Fidel’s remains will be permanently placed in Santiago de Cuba, in the same cemetery that José Martí, Frank País, and other heroes and martyrs of the Cuban Revolution are buried.  In addition, in the next days, in thousands of places throughout the island, the people will have an opportunity to sign a pledge of commitment and fidelity to the principles that Fidel taught.

      I provide here, without revision, the post that I published on August 13, 2016, entitled “Thank you, Fidel,” on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of his birth.

     I preface the republication of the post with a brief anecdote.  One day a short time ago two Cuban women knocked on my apartment door, with a mission of proselytizing for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. When I politely indicated that I was not interested, one of them asked if I believe in God.  I responded, “Yes I do, and I believe that God has sent us Fidel.”  She indicated that she understood.

     Fidel Castro is 90 years old today, August 13, 2016.

     Fidel has a special place in modern history as a defender of the oppressed, as a person with such deep respect for moral principles that he could never accept the proposition that they were impossible to implement.  He has constantly and persistently acted on the premise that a different and more just and sustainable world is possible.  

     He led a revolution that came to power through armed struggle, forcing the tyrannical dictator to flee the country.  But once in power, it turned military barracks into schools, committed to the principle that education was the most powerful arm that a people and a nation could possess.

     He directed a revolution that was anti-imperialist, totally rejecting the continuous imperialist policies of the United States.  But it was not a revolution that cultivated hatred toward the United States.  From the earliest days of its taking of power, it constantly has been open to dialogue with the United States, and it has called for a negotiation of differences on a basis of mutual respect.
 
     He forged a patriotic revolution that above all else defended the sovereignty of Cuba.  But it respected the sovereignty of all nations.  A just and sustainable world, it understood, could only be built on a foundation of solidarity among all nations and peoples.  

     He came of age in the context of a corrupt and ignominious neocolonial republic, shaped from its beginnings to serve US imperialist interests.  He developed a thorough knowledge of the events and important figures of Cuban history.  Reading on his own as an adolescent about the nationalist wars and social movements against colonial Spain and the neocolonial United States, he developed not an abstract historical perspective, but a concrete interpretation rooted in the practical needs of the people and the nation.  He read and appreciated the nineteenth century Cuban revolutionary José Martí, interpreting him from the vantage point of the popular movements during the neocolonial republic.

     He developed his political consciousness at a time when Western Marxism had fallen into Eurocentrism.  Reading on his own as a university student the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, he fashioned a reconstruction of Marxism-Leninism from the perspective of the neocolonized.  Synthesizing the works of Marx and Lenin with the teachings and writings of Martí, his speeches establish an important advance in Marxist-Leninist theory (see “Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014).

     He developed an understanding of Marxism that rejected dogma and reductionism.  He formulated an ethical and humanist revitalization of Marxism, in which socialism is understood as constructed by persons with consciousness, possessing a new mentality.  The cultural formation of the person, able to read and to think, is the essence of the socialist revolution.

     He has been described as a military genius.  He created and directed a guerrilla army that overthrew the US-backed military dictator in twenty-five months; and he directed the defense against the US-supported invasion at the Bay of Pigs, overcoming the invading force in seventy-two hours.  From Havana, he directed Cuban troops in Angola, a successful campaign against South African troops that protected the independence of Angola and ultimately led to the fall of apartheid.

     As he led the Cuban Revolution, he repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional mastery of the art of politics.  (1) In 1953, he discerned the need for dramatic action, moving beyond verbal protest.  Accordingly, he led an attack on the Moncada military barracks, galvanizing the people to heroic political action, and opening a new stage in the Cuban Revolution.  (2) He was sensitive to the concrete needs of the people, and he formulated a program that responded to their specific grievances, proclaimed in conjunction with the Moncada attack.  (3) He appreciated the need to educate the people in stages, bringing them to socialist consciousness only after concrete popular needs had been addressed.  (4) He saw the importance of popular unity, and he possessed the capacity to unify the various popular currents, combining flexibility with a persuasive presence.  (5) He understood the need for the revolutionary government to take decisive steps in defense of the people, even when they provoke the hostility of the national bourgeoisie and the neocolonial hegemonic power.  (See “Moncada: a great and heroic act” 9/2/2014; “The Moncada program for the people” 9/5/2014; “Reflections on “History will absolve me” 9/8/2014; “Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014; “Unifying the Cuban revolutionary process” 9/17/2014; “The pluralism of revolutionary unity” 9/18/2014; “Decisive revolutionary steps of 1959” 9/22/2014; “The Agrarian Reform Law of 1959” 9/23/2014; “The defining moment of the Cuban Revolution” 9/24/2014).

     In the 1960s, understanding the importance of scientific knowledge in social and economic development, Fidel initiated a process of national commitment to the development of science and to the formation of scientists, which would continue to unfold for the next fifty years, with very impressive results today.  From the outset, Fidel had a vision of developing scientific research and knowledge in response to health needs, and not driven by the market.  And he has had an integral vision of health, seeing human health as connected to animal health, and seeing the connection of both to nature.  A variety of research and teaching centers have been developed, including such fields as biotechnology, nanotechnology, genetic medicine, minimum access surgery, and computer and informational sciences.  He has been constantly present in the development of new centers and on anniversary celebrations, thanking the scientists and researchers for their work, inquiring concerning the latest discoveries, making suggestions, and in general demonstrating the commitment of the Cuban revolution to scientific development.

      In 1970s, appreciating the limitations of representative democracy, Fidel led the nation in the development of alternative structures of popular democracy (see “Cuba, United States, and human rights” 4/9/2015).  He recognized the need for the eventual replacement of his personal leadership with that of a vanguard, and he thus led the development of a new communist party, uniting three revolutionary parties, which ultimately would function to lead the revolutionary process.  

     In the early 1980s, as the global powers turned to neoliberalism, Fidel called upon the nations of the Third World to be faithful to their historic project of national and social liberation.  Working with a team of Cuban economists and speaking as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, he presented an analysis of the crisis of the world-economy.  He maintained that the crisis is rooted in fundamental structures established during European colonial domination of the world, but US economic policies during the 1960s and the 1970s deepened the crisis.  US policies had negative consequences for the world-economy as well as the US economy, and they had disastrous consequences for the Third World.  He maintained that inflation (caused by US spending beyond its productive capacity), the elimination of the gold standard for the dollar, a US monetary policy of high interest rates, declining terms of trade, and declining investment in production had catastrophic consequences for the Third World, leading to a dramatic growth in the Third World external debt.  Moreover, the external debt, combined with the increasing power of transnational corporations, constituted a serious threat to the sovereignty of Third World nations.  At the same time, rather than recognizing their responsibility in creating a global crisis, the global powers and the transnational corporations took advantage of the weakened position of the Third World to impose their own ideology and economic policy, seeking short-term profits.  In response to this situation, Fidel called upon the nations of the Third World to struggle for cancellation of the Third World debt, for fundamental structural change in the world-economy, and for a more just world-system.  He advocated strong action by Third World states, seeking diversification of production, the development of high technology industries, and mutually beneficial trade among the nations of the Third World, thus breaking the core-peripheral relation between the Third World and the developed capitalist economies (see “Fidel speaks on the global crisis, 1983” 7/25/2016; “Fidel proposes new global structures, 1983” 7/27/2016).

     In the early 1990s, with the collapse of the socialist bloc, Fidel led the Cuban nation in the development of an autonomous structural adjustment plan, demonstrating how to make economic adjustments without sacrificing commitment to moral principles and without abandoning the people (see “The Cuban structural adjustment plan” 8/1/2016).  As the Cuban economy recovered, he led the nation in developing strong ties with the progressive and Leftist governments that symbolized the new political reality in Latin America in the early twenty-first century.

     During the five decades in which he was the active leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel was constantly committed to a society based on human knowledge and creativity and on social justice; a society in which everyone has the right to learn and to develop, no one should be abandoned, and the most vulnerable should be protected.  But in addition to moral commitment, Fidel has demonstrated an advanced understanding of the dynamics of the world-system.  With an integral historical and global perspective, formulated from the vantage point of the neocolonized, Fidel’s capacity for understanding surpassed that of the overwhelming majority of historians, social scientists and philosophers.  At the same time, he repeatedly demonstrated mastery of the art of politics, discerning the strategies necessary for the attainment of social and political goals.

       These qualities are exceptional; beyond what one would think possible for a human being.  Observing this for more than twenty years, I could not fail to recall my university study of Max Weber’s typology of three forms of authority, and his description of charismatic persons who possess authority on the basis of their exceptional qualities.  Moreover, as I studied revolutions in other lands, I could not help but observe that triumphant revolutions often were led by persons with exceptional understanding, extraordinary commitment to social justice, and uncommon mastery of the art of politics.  So I have concluded that Fidel represents the general phenomenon of the emergence of charismatic leaders in revolutionary processes, who include Toussaint, Lenin, Ho, Mao, Chávez, and others.  (See various posts in the category of Charismatic Leaders).  

      After his retirement in January 2009, Fidel was no longer constantly present.  But he has continued to be present in an important way, writing articles periodically that were published in Cuban newspapers as “Reflections of Fidel.”  Among other themes, his reflections expressed support for the new Leftist tendencies in Latin America, conveyed concern for the ecological balance of the earth, and condemned the neofascist wars and the movement toward a global military dictatorship.  

      By the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Communist Party of Cuba was ready for its vanguard mission.  Composed of committed persons who have developed an advanced understanding, party members are highly respected by the people, and they are intellectually and morally prepared to lead.  In November 2010, the party presented guidelines for a new economic and social policy, responding to the desires of the people and the unfolding national and international economic situation.  After significant modification of the proposal through an extensive popular consultation, the new model was approved by the National Assembly in 2012.  The party today is leading the people in the implementation and development of the new economic and social model.  Thus, one can observe today in Cuba what can be described as the institutionalization of charismatic authority through the creation of a vanguard political party that bases its theory and practice on the teachings of the charismatic leader, the historic leader of the revolution from 1953 to 2009.

     Fidel has appeared from time to time to give his support to the development of the new social and economic model, which is principally designed to increase national production in order to improve the standard of living of the people.  He has praised party members for their intelligent and active participation in the process, and he particularly has noted the impressive capacities of young leaders that have been formed by the revolution.  “I am confident,” he proclaimed, “that the youth of Cuba will fulfill its duty.”

     There is a special bond of affection between Fidel and the Cuban people.  But Fidel is especially appreciated by Cuban intellectuals, artists, and scientists, who analyze his special capacities from the vantage point of their professions and fields of study.  Fidel also is appreciated by well-known intellectuals of Europe and Latin America, such as the French journalist Ignacio Ramonet, the Argentinian social analyst Atilio Borón, and the Brazilian intellectual and Dominican priest Frei Betto, who have had opportunity to observe his exceptional capacities.

     In the days leading up to the anniversary of the ninetieth birthday of Fidel Castro, there has been a clamor that the major media of communication has not heard.  It is the proclamation of popular organizations throughout the world, declaring: “Thank you, Fidel, for your commitment; thank you for your defense of the people; and in the context of a world increasingly turning to barbarity, thank you for your fidelity to moral principles.”  

     Thank you, Fidel.

     An online petition is requesting Republican electors to switch their vote from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College vote of December 17.  As of this date, more than four and one-half million persons have signed it.  I am one of them.

      Members of the Electoral College are not bound by the Constitution to vote in accordance with the majority of voters in their particular states.  Twenty-six states have either pledges of faithfulness to the party standard bearer or laws mandating it.  However, the pledges are not legally binding; and although the laws can impose penalties, in most cases they are fines, and they do not nullify the vote. Thomas H. Neale, a specialist on the Electoral College for the Congressional Research Service, maintains that “most constitutional scholars believe that once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President.”

      If Trump wins Michigan, thirty-seven of his 306 electors would have to abstain or cast their vote for another person in order to deny him the necessary majority in the Electoral College.  If thirty-eight of the Trump electors were to vote for Clinton, she would have the majority.  If neither obtains a majority, the presidency would be decided by the House of Representatives.

     Since 1796, there have been 156 “faithless” electors, as those who voted differently from the popular vote in their states are called.  In these cases, the votes were counted, and no sanctions was imposed. Here are some examples.  In 2000, a Democratic elector from the District of Columbia abstained from voting in protest of the District’s lack of Congressional representation.  In 1976, a Republican elector from the state of Washington, pledged to vote for Gerald Ford, voted for Ronald Reagan.  In 1972, a Nixon Republican elector from Virginia voted for the Libertarian presidential candidate.  In 1968, a Nixon Republican elector voted for George Wallace, candidate of the American Independence Party.  In 1956, a Democratic elector form Alabama voted for a former circuit judge in his hometown instead of Aldai Stevenson.  In 1948, a democratic elector from Tennessee voted for Strom Thurmond, the States Rights Party candidate, instead of Harry Truman.  In 1836, twenty-three electors from Virginia abstained, denying necessary Electoral College votes to their Democratic Party candidate for Vice-President, as a result of allegations that he had lived with an African-American woman.  In 1796, a Federalist elector from Pennsylvania voted for Democratic-Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson instead of the Federalist candidate John Adams.

     In the 2016 presidential elections, one of the reasons why a Republican elector might be persuaded to vote for Hillary Clinton is that she obtained at least one and one-half million more votes than Trump nationally.  Such a Republican elector might perceive that the national political will should be given greater priority than faithfulness to the electoral results in a particular state or loyalty to a political party.

     Peter Beinart, associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York, maintains that “for the first time in modern American history, there’s a plausible case for urging the electors to vote their consciences.”  He has identified four reasons why Republican electors should abstain or vote for a candidate other than Trump. (1)  The danger that a Trump presidency would pose to the environment, inasmuch as Trump has repeatedly said that climate change is a hoax.  (2) The threat of nuclear war.  Trump in March and August made comments that suggest that he considers the use of nuclear arms to be a viable option for U.S. foreign policy.  (3)  The possibility that Trump might severely curtain freedoms of press, association and speech, particularly in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, and especially with respect to Islamic citizens of the United States.  (4)  Trump might attempt to ignore the constitutional limits of presidential authority, thus provoking a constitutional crisis.

      I am more inclined to argue in a different direction, maintaining the Trump is morally unqualified for the highest political office in the land. One Trump elector has publicly expressed his reservations about voting for Trump, precisely on moral grounds.  The elector maintains that his pledge to the Republican state party of Texas was made before Trump became the nominee, and that "as a Christian, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Trump is not biblically qualified for that office."

       Like the elector from Texas, I reflect on the question of whether or not Trump has the moral qualities to hold the office of president. But unlike our friend from Texas, I am guided not only by the words found in the Christian Bible, but also by the sacred texts formed by the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first century discourses of the charismatic leaders of the global popular movement for a just, democratic and sustainable world-system.  In accordance with a philosophical and ethical perspective so formed, I am deeply troubled by Mr. Trump’s scapegoating of ethnic and religious groups, blaming them as the source of problems that we confront, for the purpose of obtaining votes.  With a minimum of historical consciousness, we cannot fail to be aware of the sad and tragic consequences of this form of behavior in the history of Nazi Germany as well as the American South.  And as we reflect on the possibilities for the future, we certainly must conclude that there can be no tolerance for politicians who indulge in such behavior, for it is fundamentally incompatible with the processes necessary for creating a more just world.  Scapegoating is a morally unacceptable strategy. When it works, the electoral results are invalidated morally, and if the constitutional and legal means for the nullification of the election exist, those means ought to be utilized.

     These are exceptional times, defined by the multidimensional structural crisis of the world-system, and by the economic decline of the neocolonial hegemonic power, which, confused by its decline, turns more and more to military aggression.  The people do not understand these dynamics very well, but they understand enough to feel that things are out of control, and to know that the corporate elite, the financial speculators, and the ruling political class are not committed to taking steps that would benefit the average citizen.  Meanwhile, the Left has not been able to offer a viable alternative.  The Green Party has the right idea, in that it has formed an alternative political party, standing against the corporations.  But its platform is ahistorical, unphilosophical, superficial, and ethnocentric (see “The Green Party Platform” 8/26/2016).  It does not have the capacity to persuade the people of its legitimacy as an alternative force to the liberal and neofascist currents of thought that pervade the land in a confusing manner, currents which are tied to corporate interests.

      In this scenario of national decline and global economic, ecological, and political crisis; and in the absence of responsible and informed national leadership; the people are vulnerable to a skillful message that taps into their anxieties and fears.  In this situation, we would do well to recall the defense of the Electoral College by one of its architects, Alexander Hamilton (see Federalist Papers #68):

He concluded:

​Hamilton expected that electors would deliberate, separately in each state, and would analyze and evaluate the moral qualities of the candidates, seeking to ensure that the elected person has the virtues that are required for a position of such high responsibility.  Hamilton intended that the electors would be free agents and deliberative representatives of the people, not lackeys of political parties.

       A denial of the presidency to Trump by the Electoral College would not be the definitive solution that we need in this time of national and global crisis.  It would provoke even more conflict than presently exists, with Trump supporters enraged.  And neither Hillary Clinton nor an alternative Republican selected by the Republican-controlled Congress would possess the necessary moral and intellectual qualities to lead the nation in these exceptional times of crisis.  It would, however, prevent a possible fall into fascism, and therefore, it is a step that we as a nation should take, if the necessary political will could be marshalled.

     What we really need is not available in the short term.  It is only possible in the long term, through the commitment and dedication of people who understand the true meaning of leadership.  What we need is a true party of the Left, capable of providing our people with a comprehensive and global analysis of the challenges that we confront, and capable as well of connecting to concrete concerns of the people, not by tapping into their anxieties and fears, but by believing in their intelligence, respecting their values, and calling upon their hopes.  The success of Sanders and Trump during the 2016 presidential elections, through which the people expressed their rejection of the political establishment of both parties, in spite of the superficiality of the one and the neo-fascism of the other, demonstrate the possibilities for a well-formulated national project proposal coming from the Left.  (For further reflections on an alternative party of the Left, see “A socialist revolution in the USA” 2/1/2016 and “Popular democratic socialist revolution” 1/15/2016).

​     The campaign slogan of president-elect Donald Trump envisions the restoration of a former era of greatness for the United States. What concepts does the slogan imply, and what emotions does it evoke?

      The era of the power and the glory of the United States was the post-World War II era, from 1945 to 1963.  It enjoyed unrivaled economic, financial, military, and ideological primacy in the world.  Its ascent to this position of hegemony in the neocolonial world-system was established on a foundation of: a lucrative trading relation with the slaveholding Caribbean during the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries; the territorial expansion of the United States through the conquest of indigenous nations and Mexico; the investment of capital, attained through the Caribbean trade, in industry in the North; the lucrative trade relation between the industrial North and slave South during the nineteenth century; the concentration of industry during the second half of the nineteenth century; the development of imperialist policies with respect to Latin America during the twentieth century; investment in the highly profitable auto and steel industries during the twentieth century; the conversion of industry to war industries during World War II; and the move toward a permanent war economy, justified by the Cold War.

      Since the 1960s, the United States has experienced an economic decline, such that it no longer has unrivaled dominance.  This decline was the result of: excessive military expenditures and consumer spending, beyond the productive capacity of the nation, resulting in trade and state deficits and debts; fiscal irresponsibility in the highest levels of government; and insufficient investment in new forms of production and new products.  

      The decline of a hegemonic core nation is a normal phenomenon in the history of the modern world-system.  The United States in the third nation, following Holland and the United Kingdom, to go through the “cycle of hegemony,” as it has been named by US sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein.

       As is evident, the United States cannot return to its former greatness.  The conditions that drove its ascent are no longer present, and its current state of relative decline presents major obstacles to a renewal, especially without a structural adjustment based on critical analysis of its decline.  

     Moreover, the unrealistic call for a return to former greatness occurs at a time in which the world-system is experiencing a profound structural crisis, of which the symptoms are economic stagnation, spiraling financial speculation, wasteful spending on arms and conflicts, political instability, and ecological overstretch.  In such a global context, US leaders should not be invoking the impossible task of restoring former greatness; they should be calling for popular support for the new challenge of working with other nations in the development of a world-system that is more politically stable and economically and ecologically sustainable.

     The era of US power and glory was also an era in which white men ruled.  Whites were a higher percentage of the population in that era; and blacks, Latinos and indigenous nations were confined to their ghettos, barrios, and reservations, without the minimum of political and civil rights.  Meanwhile, women were expected to stay in the home, and few women were able to enter many professions.  And hardly anyone thought about the needs of nature, or the rights of the formerly colonized nations to sovereignty.  Does the slogan seek to tap into emotions that year for a return to such ways of thinking and living?

      In a previous post, I expressed my concern for Trump’s tendency to scapegoat immigrants and Muslims, indicating that seeking votes in this way is a sign of an inclination toward fascism in some form.  I continue to have this concern, and I see that neo-fascist and ultranationalist groups in the United States and Europe have supported his candidacy and are celebrating his electoral victory.  It seems to me that the form of fascism to which Trump is inclined is an ultra-nationalism that includes blacks, Latinos and women, to the extent that they support the program; but excludes illegal immigrants and dismisses the needs of other nations and peoples.  Although it may be impractical to construct a wall between the United States and Mexico, I would not be surprised to see the future Trump administration take decisive steps to curb immigration to the United States and to expel illegal immigrants.

        The candidate Trump sometimes suggested that the United States should choose its foreign military engagements more intelligently, and that it should expect other nations to assume more responsibility in the defense of the world-system.  He perhaps is inclined to seek a degree of disengagement from US military involvement abroad.

      The candidate Trump did not seem to have the support of sectors of the corporate elite that normally support the Republican presidential nominee.  It may be that Trump is oriented to promotion of the interests of sectors like real estate and retail trade, as against corporations that are integral to the military-industrial complex.

      Trump as president cannot govern alone.  He would have to arrive to an accommodation with important sectors of the Republican Party, with which he was in conflict during the campaign.  It is most likely that the Trump administration will form alliances with sectors of the Right. If such alliances were to stand in tension with the interests of the military-industrial complex, there may emerge a political realignment, in which the Republican Party would become a small town and rural populist party of the Right, allied to corporations in non-military sectors such as construction, real estate, transportation and retail trade; with the Democratic Party standing more clearly in support of urban popular sectors and the largest corporations tied to the military-industrial complex.  This at least would have the virtue of clarifying the ideological tendencies of the US public discourse.

      As I have said in previous posts, the Left in the United States needs to formulate a clear, historically and globally informed, and politically intelligent alternative, which thus far it has failed to do.


Key words:  Trump, presidential elections, campaign slogans, fascism