IN the grand circus of US politics, the stage is set for the 2024 presidential election – a spectacle where an ageing Joe Biden, at 81, battles not just his political rival Donald Trump, but the relentless passage of time.
The televised debate on June 27 starkly highlighted his frailties, the once formidable public servant now seemed a mere shadow, struggling with his speech and faltering under Trump’s relentless provocations.
The New York Times, in a poignant editorial post-debate, painted Biden as a tragic figure, wrestling with the reality of his waning faculties. Their lamentation echoed Shakespeare’s King Lear, questioning the duty and audacity of an old man in the face of flattery bending to power.
Meanwhile, the liberal media, initiates a sombre chorus, urging Biden to cede the limelight to a younger generation of liberal imperialists, as if to preserve the aesthetic of a kinder and gentler imperialism they prefer to the blatant vulgarity Trump epitomises.
Rebecca Solnit of The Guardian criticises this late-game epiphany among her peers, pointing out the irony in their sudden stampede to declare Biden unfit – a narrative dangerously close to undermining the liberal cause at a critical juncture.
This is not just about Biden’s age or eloquence, it is a deeper ideological skirmish. The liberal media does not truly disdain Biden, they fear his potential failure to mask the harsh face of American imperialism – a facade that contrasts sharply with Trump’s unapologetic neo-fascism. Both are merely different masks on the same face of American power.
And yet, veteran politicians such as Mitch McConnell and the late Dianne Feinstein exemplify the enduring desire to cling to power, regardless of age or capability. These political stalwarts, frozen in time, underscore a broader American fascination with perpetual leadership, despite the physical and ethical toll it exacts.
This election is not merely a choice between two seniors, it is a referendum on the veneer of morality that liberal imperialism tries to uphold. Biden, dubbed “Genocide Joe” for his roles in international conflicts, symbolises the liberal struggle with its own contradictions – professing humanitarian values while perpetuating global dominance.
As Stephen M. Walt articulates, the ethos of liberal imperialism seeks to dress neoconservative desires in humanitarian rhetoric, claiming the right to dictate political outcomes worldwide under the guise of moral responsibility. This facade, as Karuna Mantena suggests, is a relic of British imperial discourse – a veneer of ethical governance that has long since frayed.
However, this particular US presidential election is happening while its chief Zionist outpost in occupied Palestine is actively engaged in a genocidal project to murder as many Palestinians as possible in order to steal their land and expand the horizons of a major US imperial outpost.
Liberal or naked, US imperialism will continue to sustain that outpost in power. Zionism in the US has opened for itself a shop with two doors at a crossroads of liberal and reactionary imperialism. It makes absolutely no difference if Don the Con or Genocide Joe wins this race. Either way, they are covered by their relentless lobbying for their settler colony.
The crisis of liberal imperialism, as we see it unfold in the US these days, is symptomatic of the larger crisis of global politics – from the rise of neo-fascism in Europe, to the dysfunctional Arab ruling regimes, to the unleashing of genocidal Zionism in Palestine – where the scarcity of resources is exposing all the false claims to moral authority or political legitimacy.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
