Would it be so wrong if anyone rephrased Marx, and said: America determines everything? To some extent we cannot deny the truth of such a statement. And when their foreign policies have sure effects on us—the people who live in the "third world" countries, waiting, demanding, and often crying to be defined, labeled, commissioned and represented by them—for the responsibility towards my "people", I, a single layman who perhaps does not even have the right to write about politics, am forced to have something to say at last. A novus ordo seclorum is about to emerge, and this extraordinary advent is going to be brought upon the earth by two intriguing candidates. One, a businesman—who frequently refers to Mexico and China with utter derision; who has so little to talk about other than the "unbelievable company" he owns; who inflicts personal slurs without any qualms; who is bent on using, if necessary, as much brutal force as certain religious extremists strike on others with, and who almost always talks about stopping American companies from leaving America and finding money-growing, easily exploitable "promised lands" whenever he is asked about his future policies regarding the increase of job opportunities under his presidency. The other is a former first lady, a "former" in so many political capacities, and a social activist. Hillary Clinton has been breathing politics for a long time and the added adventures of being a social-rights activist have plastered a smile on her face which is often, to be honest, a little disconcerting.

While on the one hand Trump seems extreme when it comes to border-policy or his hatred for those who steal "American jobs", Hillary, on the other hand, seems a little too quiet about the Middle-eastern projects that she advocated and perhaps even sanctioned. But let's go back to the job issue first. Although a self-proclaimed "genius", is Trump unknowingly implying that others, and mostly Asians and Mexicans, are actually "stealing" American jobs, may be because Americans are not efficient in doing them? One is curious to know in a dialogue, if possible, with a less excited Trump, what he thinks is the reason of this job-theft? Maybe less taxation on the wealthy will give them the opportunity to provide schools with better facilities, and into establishing, besides empires and Taj Mahals, other such facilities that aim at discovering and developing the skills of "real American people"? But how long are people really going to buy these commercial-promises of a wealthy man, who single-handedly wants to do something about the American debt (in trillions of dollars!)? One needs guts to take up a huge project like that but a government that has too much faith in its own strength may accomplish three things- it may either become a good government, or it may collapse for not knowing its own loopholes or it may turn into an organisation, fueled by racial pride and over-confidence, posing threats for others. Trump's trump-card might prove to be the last little push towards the unknown abyss of possible threats. Hillary, on the other hand, to some extent, has already realised Edward Said's worst nightmare: postorientalism, the actualisation of the "Western conceptions of the Orient" through brutal force in the name of law and order and democracy, on the pretext of saving the people from declining middle-eastern countries. A conflict was situated, as surprisingly but aptly put by Trump, by the Democrats. And it is all just natural. Although the name of Marx (the supreme advocate of democracy) sounds archaic now, we cannot deny the dangerous 'elitist' thesis that he had put forward, about revolution being the only possible way to usher the era of a prosperous society and about how it is even justified to situate the conflict that might ignite the "necessary revolution". Hillary being a Democrat already knows that, does that, supports that, but Trump too, although he belongs to the Republican side, wants to do the same as a safety measure. This is exactly where both, with their apparent differences, are very similar, and this is what is frightening, because both thrive on conflicts and oppositions and offences and defenses, without at any time detailing their "visions" to the public.

If we put both our heroes on a scale - trump is easily excitable, distractible (he stops abruptly while talking and switches to another topic); Hillary is always prepared, sometimes so prepared that she seems more artificial than spontaneous. Trump remains aloof, literary aloof, after the presidential debate in his typical "hot-shot" pose and thumbs ups; Hillary comes "down" to people and shakes hands from a height, as if trying to prove something by portraying a contrast between her and Trump.

But, excuse me! What does all this have to do with Bangladesh and a Bangladeshi like you? I am prepared, not too prepared though, to answer the question. The impact of American politico-economic torrent is tremendous on our shores, and we cannot deny how much we owe to America, financially, politically and academically. Now can we really approach someone with a serious issue who looks at the camera and requests for votes like an amateur star in a reality show, or someone who probably has already started building the "great American wall" in his dreams? Does it really make any difference, if we have to choose between cunning and cruel? Therefore, we need plans and we need to take calculated measures in order to act diplomatically with America in the future. Otherwise America's new imperial strategies may either shut us off from entering their "first world" or it may, by the virtue of their diplomacy, help them enter into ours, without any resistance.

The writer is Lecturer, Department of English, Varendra University