Nature of current US politics

THE EDITOR: Continuing on my theme of the nature of politics, it is instructive that billionaire Elon Musk could see the unfettered immigration across the US as “Biden’s strategy to bring one-party rule (Democratic Party) to America” (Economic Times, YouTube).

The gist of Musk’s argument is that with so many incentives being given to the huge number of incoming migrants under Biden’s watch, being offered free entry without the traditional vetting that is part of the legal process, and having access to state resources, inter alia, the object, according to Musk, seems to be to overwhelm the existing 50-state population with migrants who are likely to vote Democrats to ensure the latter in power virtually ad infinitum.

And Musk is not alone in this. Tucker Carlson, recently deposed from Fox and now with Twitter, is vociferous in highlighting this seeming objective of Biden and the Democrats, and so does Tulsi Gabbard, a prospective Trump VP, and not forgetting Vivek Ramaswamy, former Republican candidate, who seems to be on the same wavelength.

The question is how does one respond to such an allegation. With the the tug-o'-war that is currently US politics with Democrats and Republicans fighting almost to the death and with Musk, reportedly previously Democrat, now seeming turncoat, and Carlson, Gabbard and Ramaswamy obviously pro-Trump, one is tempted to be sceptical about such an allegation.

But does some measure of credibility creep in when the Biden immigration policy line seems to deliberately court incoming migrants for the purpose suggested by Musk et al? Admittedly asylum in the US and elsewhere for those ill-treated in their respective countries is legally legitimate as endorsed by the UN.

However, when there seems to be a deliberate attempt to attract and encourage incoming migrants from all over the world, to the tune of thousands per week (allowing them free access and almost emasculating the border patrol on the southern border, accommodating migrants in sanctuary cities, providing them with room, board and spending money, and in many cases like in New York, at the expense of bonafide Americans, some of them even having their homes commandeered by migrants, and having to fight for them or in some cases losing them to migrants altogether) is there not a temptation to concur with the allegation above?

And how do we here in this country, traditionally accustomed to seeing the US as our benchmark in everything, especially in the politics as the mother of all democracies, respond to a current brand of politics seeming to serve a sinister end against all that is legal and constitutional, patriotic, human, civilised and decent, simply to facilitate a power grab by one group?

Here in this country currently is the talk about constitutional reform, but is it the same kind of subterfuge at play here and all is mere talk, for ours is a history of race-based politics where the Westminster system of first past the post facilitates such voting by race? Would our leaders ever want the kind of constitutional change to upset their assured political longevity which this system affords? Would we ever attempt to emulate Guyana, with the same racial mix as ours, which by its system of proportional representation has been able to avoid this racist aberration and produce a more equitable election result in the interest of both races?

Politics is a dirty game and, as I have presumed to remind readers all the time, it is all for the power of a few and never for the people. If the "mother of all democracies" can so violate the ethics of such a system, where does that place us except to follow the lead?

DR ERROL N BENJAMIN

via e-mail