In Bulgaria, across Europe, and around the world, the victory last November of wealthy real-estate developer Donald Trump over America’s former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left many observers puzzled. So did the events in Washington DC on January 21, the day after President Trump’s inauguration, when thousands of protesters descended on Washington. As with the election, America’s old-line establishment media got it wrong, even though background information was readily available.   One of the keynote speakers was Angela Davis, an African American feminist with a long history of speeches before presidential elections. Few in the raucous crowd knew anything of Davis’ affection for all-white, all-male Communist dictatorships.   In 1980, Angela Davis was the vice-presidential candidate of the Communist Party USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of


  While Trump is now president of the United States, there are still many within and without the United States that fervently believe that he acquired this office by illegitimate means. They include the unprecedented number of fifty democratic members of Congress, who boycotted his inauguration and countless others. There is nothing that could be done to convince the unhinged Hillary partisans that there is zero evidence of effective interference in the elections on behalf of Trump. But it is understandable that even open-minded people who do not understand the American electoral system may be confused, given the unrelenting mainstream media propaganda to the effect that there was not the slightest chance for Trump to win. Indeed, on the day of the elections, purported ‘reputable’ media sources, such as the


Donald Trump is now the president of the United States and it is already clear that this is the beginning of a new era in American and international politics. It is, as political scientists like to say, a paradigm change. Untangling where exactly the paradigm change lies may not seem possible only a couple of days after Trump assumed power, but the new president is nothing if not clear as to what he would like to do. Whether he would be able to do it is another question that would have to wait for an answer, but his intentions are clear. The most memorable line in his short inaugural address puts his main disagreement with the way things as follows: “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital


The Brexit and “Trumpit” movements share many similarities. Both played on discomfort with globalization and immigration. They were portrayed in the media as ignorant, reactionary, and racist. Neither seemed more than minor threats at first, their leaders too inept or buffoonish to last. The very rich, the very young and the very hip generally abhorred them and still do. The more support Brexit and Trump gathered from others, the more the media emphasized their vileness and demagogy.   Between media headwinds and their own stumbles, neither Brexit nor Trumpit gained a clear majority in pre-election polls. Even their backers expected them to fail. However, closet support and disproportionate turnout provided an extra 3%, enough to push them over the top.   How? Brexit and Trumpit struck deep chords with the


With just a few hours passed since the US election results were officially announced, it is certainly premature to pontificate on likely policy changes in Washington. Nonetheless, Trump’s victory and that of the GOP in Congress were so massive and unexpected that at least some speculation on their meaning is warranted.   The first thing to note is that this election will almost certainly prove to be a transformative one, that is an election that ends one era in American politics and ushers in another. To that extent, it is similar to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, though Trump hardly resembles Reagan as a politician. It is also a dramatic repudiation of the policies of the Left that dominated not only Hillary’s agenda, but those of Barak Obama


With a Clinton at the top of the Democratic ticket, Tuesday’s United States elections are generating significant interest in the Balkans and are dividing some neighbors along familiar ethnic lines. A quick trip around the Western Balkans reveals Clinton footprints all over the region, some of which trigger feelings of immense gratitude and some of which are the source of long-lasting anger.   In the latter half of the 1990s, then-president Bill Clinton arguably delivered peace through strength to the Balkans. However, Clinton’s signature peace agreement is malfunctioning as a system of governance, and the U.S. interventions in the region have left a trail of radical Islam and unhealed wounds that are affecting geopolitics.   Peace through strength   Clinton-led NATO interventions effectively put an end to both the brutal


  It is now one week before American voters head to the polls to elect their next president and the one thing that is clear is that both candidates are despised by 60% of the public according to numerous surveys. The choice on November 8, as the Wall Street Journal put it aptly, is between “a crook and a clown.” That two badly flawed candidates would make it to the finish line in the oldest democracy is proof that something has gone wrong in the American electoral system. It is to be hoped that the country’s political elites will realize this and reform it. If not, America is in for tough times. In the meantime, the elections will take place as scheduled and one of the two less than stellar


  Vladimir Putin and Russia are trying to influence the American election, according to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “And believe me, they’re not doing it to get me elected,” the former First Lady said in the October 9 presidential debate. “They’re doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.”   The Democratic candidate also said: “We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election.” America’s old-line establishment media has been slow to run a fact check on that proclamation but a few realities have emerged during the campaign.   “Foreign governments have regularly sought to shape our politics,” wrote Paul Musgrave, professor of government

Photo: Wikimedia Commons/ Michael Vadon

  With the first debate in the American presidential contest scheduled for next Monday, this is a good a time to take stock of what has already happened in this race and what could be expected in the next in the next six weeks. In short, as the race stands now, it is still Hillary Clinton’s race to lose, but it is far from a foregone conclusion as it looked in the middle of last August. Indeed, a Trump victory is no longer considered impossible and would not be a huge surprise if it did happen. To understand this dramatic turnaround a number of key developments that have taken place in the meantime must be considered.   As of the time of this writing (Sept. 24, 2016) Clinton leads Trump

Photo: Wikimedia Commons/ Michael Vadon

  The most salient political aspect of Donald Trump’s nomination this week is this fact: the American people have never elected anyone whose first public service was the presidency. (I include generals — Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses S. Grant — as having serious experience in public service before the presidency.) Only once before has one of the two major parties nominated a business leader with no prior experience in public office, with the GOP’s selection of utility executive Wendell Willkie in 1940.   Like Trump, Willkie had been a Democrat most of his life, and only converted to the Republican Party a year before seeking the GOP nomination. But there the parallels end. Unlike Trump, Willkie had a long track record of detailed public engagement on the issues of the 1930s