The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
The emphasis in the text, except in the headings, is mine.
America’s Two-party System is illicit intercourse of Hypocrisy and Showing one’s faults
Observers of American politics from Japan are often surprised.
Not only in the major media but also in online media such as social networking sites, people often say, “Democratic liberals are the righteous allies who love freedom, equality, peace, and democratic royalty; Republican conservative mainstream is They see things in cartoonish schematic form, such as “a vicious group that supports foreign dictatorships, hates equality, and wants to intervene in the war if there is a chance. They see things in cartoonish schematic terms.
When we judge reality in such a simple way, we cannot even see what is happening in front of our eyes.
For example, it is the Democratic liberals who are kissing up to the one-party dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party, the world’s most giant oppressor of human rights, and the mainstream Republican conservatives since Nixon-Kissinger.
In this regard, the two parties have a splendid bipartisan joint front because of the backing of the financial industry, the joint sponsor of the two major parties.　
And it is evident that Trump is fighting a lonely battle against this two-party mainstream coalition.
However, while both Democratic liberals and mainstream Republican conservatives broadly appease China, there are nuanced differences.
The conservative wing of the Republican Party dislikes the one-party dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party.
However, the old financial industry sponsors such as banks, securities companies, and insurance companies said, “If we cut off our economic relations with China now, our source of income will be gone, so please bear with us.” So many people are reluctant to obey.
The founding CEOs of relatively young telecommunications and technology companies and the managers of new wave financial institutions such as hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital firms, and corporate acquisition funds are, with few exceptions. They are ardent supporters of Democratic liberals without exception.
Many of them genuinely admire the concentration of power in the hands of the Chinese president, and many of them would like to have the same iron rule over the companies they run, if possible.
Do they feel no contradiction or doubt between their liberal political and social views and the rigid governance of their own companies? Not.
Here is a symbolic example. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, is a billionaire who is a typical Democrat liberal. No, not just a billionaire, but a $100 billionaire who alone has the assets of several dozen billionaires.
However, at Amazon’s pickup and delivery centers, the employees who pick up and deliver products according to order slips are required to carry plastic bottles of soft drinks with them at all times. If they do not add to their drinks while picking, they receive points on their work evaluations.
Not surprisingly, liberal newspapers, specifically the Washington Post, persisted in writing exposés of the harsh labor-management practices at Amazon.
How did Bezos respond?
He bought the financially strapped Washington Post outright with his own pocket money, with no intention of making it part of the Amazon Group.
I fully support the Post’s liberal tone, except for Amazon’s labor-management revelations.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party plays on such hypocritical rhetoric as “Corporations have a mission that goes beyond the pursuit of profit to protect the environment and create a better society.” The conservative wing of the Republican Party says, “The mission of corporate executives is to make money, and expect them to do more than that is an overreach. It is safe to say that this is the case.
In short, the Democrats are the party of hypocrisy, and the Republicans are the party of showing one’s faults. 
Both parties are paid handsomely by powerful industry trade associations and major corporations, and both work day and night to create a convenient legal system for their sponsors.
Returning to the military-industrial complex, the term itself already has a 60-year history.
Dwight Eisenhower, who won the 1952 presidential election as the Republican candidate, was a genuine professional soldier who ended World War II as “Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces.
In his farewell address at the end of his term of office from 1953 to 1961, which coincided with the postwar boom period, Eisenhower warned the American people to “Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex.
The phrase itself originally referred to the military-industrial-academic-congressional complex. Still, out of deference to members of the House and Senate, Eisenhower reduced Congress. Before long, academia disappeared, and the expression has replaced the phrase that only the military and the military-industrial complex are in collusion.
And despite Eisenhower’s warnings, the U.S. had often taken military action since the 1960s that required huge war expenditures when the Democrats had the president and a majority in both the upper and lower houses of Congress.
Among the most costly U.S. general casualties was the Vietnam War.
It was the Democratic Kennedy-Johnson administration that deliberately took over this almost unwinnable war from France, the former sovereign nation of Vietnam, and rushed into it.

.