WEIRD AND DANGEROUS

It’s weird and dangerous — more so each day.

The media is focused on giving advice to Sanders: quit now or “his chance to build a lasting legacy may be slipping away.” Why complicate things? Why not just get on with it: Clinton vs. Trump.

The fact is things are complicated, very. For one thing, look at Robert Kagan’s column in the Washington Post: This is how fascism comes to America. On the face of it, this is a bold indictment of Trump and the GOP, one that echoes warnings from many progressive democrats.

Look again. It’s not at all irrelevant that Kagan is the leading voice of neoconservative hawks. He rose to that status after his early service with Cheney in pushing for the Iraq War, continuing as a GOP advocate for more aggressive military interventionism, leading the charge against Obama as “weak” and reluctant to employ US military power. His wife and colleague, Victoria Nuland, was a major figure in Hillary Clinton’s State Department, notorious for recklessly stoking revival of  ‘cold war’ tensions in Europe.

Even before Trump threw his hat in the ring, Kagan accompanied his attacks on Obama with an embrace of Hillary Clinton. He stressed that the neocons would be “comfortable” with her. No surprise, that makes a lot of people “uncomfortable”: those who favor a turn away from the proven risks and failures of superpower militarism and war.

The neocons fear Trump as a 'loose canon', who might not march in rhythm with the particulars of their agenda. But it would be a travesty if some who oppose the neocon hawks were to conclude that Trump is an alternative. There’s no quarrel with sounding the alarm that Trump and the GOP have opened a Pandora’s box of fascist possibilities. And those possibilities — violent nativism, racism, and bullying based on “America First” military power — will never serve peace at home or abroad.

So things are not simple. Beating Trump is the clear and certain priority. But progressives have a lot to ponder and a lot that needs doing.

There is much that the millions of voters for Sanders and Clinton share. That’s the basis for unity that is so urgent no matter who faces off against Trump. But unity has to be dynamic. Agreement on the main priority doesn’t mean that the fight for change should be hidden away or surrendered.

My focus here has been on foreign policy, but the argument could be made with regard to a range of issues that involve the battle against economic and social inequality. At issue is whether the powerful energy brought forward by the Sanders campaign can be a force that is decisive in a landslide defeat of Trump; also, can it emerge from the elections as a new and influential factor opening up politics to the public interest as opposed to control by big money.

So I root for more successes for Bernie’s campaign and will vote for him in the California primaries. A very promising move is his recent encouragement of new candidates at state and local levels. I wish for a Democratic Convention that unites to beat Trump and the GOP. I root for a Convention that recognizes and values the historic contributions of the Sanders campaign. I root for a convention in which the Democratic Party establishment is challenged and more delegates, both office holders and grass-roots participants, are open to changing policies and practices that impede unity and make electoral candidates more vulnerable.

That would make me “comfortable” voting for Trump’s Democratic opponent in November. In any case, the “miracle” of the Sanders campaign holds promise of an effective independent political movement beyond the presidential election. That calls for a concept of unity inclusive of millions on either side of the Sanders-Clinton primary divide.

We choose our priorities and cast our votes. Support may be strong based on a major consideration, but critical or non-existent on other important particulars. In my memory, we have not had a president who didn’t have to be strongly opposed on important policies, often on issues of war and peace. That battle goes on past elections. There is no other option. And sometimes the president has to bend.

Bernie is right to keep going. It won’t be over even when the primaries end. Unity to defeat Trump can be more meaningful to a lot of young people if it’s connected to “a future to believe in”. Just another political insider deal woudn’t pass. 

COMING TO THE END POINT — PRIMARIES 2016

There’s something ironic about the flailing going on in a GOP in full disarray, something eerily familiar for many on the left to the questions now roiling “traditional” Republicans leery of Trump. Do you go with him after all? Do you vote for the “lesser evil”, presumably Hillary? Do you try to mount a “third party” challenge? Do you just not vote?

For a variety of reasons, one can’t take much comfort from the GOP’s anguish. For one thing, Trump’s rise is not just a freak turn of events. It is testimony to deeply rooted problems in our country, in our society, which the Sanders campaign has targeted. The ultra-Right of “the billionaire class” wields great power within government and the media to exploit fears, insecurity and racist anger. All things considered, one may not rest assured that Trump, the demagogue, can’t win.

Inevitably, as we get to crunch time in the closing phase of the primaries, echoes of old dilemmas surface on the left. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, as is most likely, vulnerabilities exposed in the primaries are not readily dismissed. There is significant criticism of her uninspiring emphasis on the limits of what’s possible, her questionable relations with Wall Street, her reliance on big money campaign financing, and, most important, there is clear evidence of hawkish differences with Obama and her commitment to an even more aggressively militaristic foreign policy. Her strengths were also apparent. Despite problems dating back to the1990s, she connected more fully than Sanders with communities of color fighting racism and xenophobia in the criminal justice system and in immigration policy. Responding to central issues raised by Sanders, she moved somewhat forward on questions of workers’ rights, trade policy and the minimum wage. She always has been a strong advocate for equality for women and supports gender equality as a matter of principle. It will certainly not be a small thing whenever the USA elects its first woman President.

I believe most supporters of Sanders and Clinton will come together because they recognize what a disaster it would be for us and for the world if Trump or any would-be dictator were to succeed Obama. There are those who would give contrary advice, some with understandable reservations. But I want to take issue with one view sent to me by email yesterday that suggests the left should actually favor a Trump victory. He writes: “… the rest of the world (if not those living in the United States) has less to fear from Donald Trump than from Hillary Clinton.” He actually proposes a strategy that could elect Trump, soliciting support for a letter to Bernie Sanders urging a Sanders-Stein Green Party ticket. Of course, there is absolutely no reason to think Sanders would consider such advice. 

The author of the letter to Sanders has been the source of much worthwhile material on Israel, Palestine and the Middle East. An American who lives in Europe, he can be cavalier about what a President Trump might mean for “those living in the United States”, while he nurses illusions of Trump as a boon to world peace. Millions of Americans have very good reason to fear a Trump regime. In fact, the very best reason to work for a landslide defeat of the GOP would be to register a historic rejection of racism and bigotry.

But supreme folly would be to paint Trump as an agent for peace. Yes, he’s unpredictable and might not feel bound by conventional wisdoms, many of which have proved costly and resulted in failure. But “America First” and “Peace through Strength” are not recipes for non-violence in world affairs. Trump boasts a reputation as a notorious corporate “deal maker”, but that doesn’t make him less of a bully, one who boasts he would use torture even beyond water-boarding, favors nuclear proliferation and justifies our own past and potential use of nuclear weapons. 

The world would have more reason than it already has to fear the arrogant flaunting of US power. In these times, we live with nightmares, none worse than contemplating a megalomaniac as commander-in-chief of the all-too expansive worldwide US military establishment and keeper of the keys to a nuclear arsenal that could obliterate life on earth.

While Trump is most dangerous, it looks like there may be no real peace candidate in 2016, at least not one with a real chance to influence the course of events. Tom Hayden makes this point in his latest bulletin, but then surprisingly blasts Bernie Sanders as a supporter of “regime change” military interventionism. Of course Sanders, whatever may be questionable about some past Congressional votes, is the one who voted against the Iraq war and, in these primaries, has explicitly criticized “regime change” adventurism. He has also had the courage to resist political pressure from AIPAC for support of Israel’s occupation regime and the Netanyahu government’s determination to prevent establishment of a Palestinian state. 

Frankly I don’t understand why Hayden, who originally supported the Sanders campaign, chooses now to direct his fire at Sanders. Perhaps he means to justify his decision to vote for Clinton in the California primary. I certainly agree with his appeal for unity in support of the Democratic nominee to ensure a crushing defeat for Trump (or whomever may still emerge from a chaotic and possibly violent GOP Convention).  But dumping on Sanders is no way to get unity when the movement he has launched is more important than ever going forward to the Democratic Convention and beyond. The movement which has achieved so much so far, which has transformed political consideration of some of our most basic social and economic problems, still has work to do. Not least is to elevate the need for a turn in foreign policy toward peace and coping with climate change. Concern for peace can be a unifying issue for Hillary and Bernie supporters. 

We and the whole world would surely be safer with a peace president committed to less militaristic and provocative pursuits. We haven’t had too many such since the USA became a military superpower. Thus the necessity for a popular movement to push back against the hawks. Even a stubborn loyalist of the military-industrial establishment can be compelled to adjust to reality, to engage more in diplomacy to deal with problems rather than resort to military intervention that yields so many failures and so much peril. 

‘These are the times that try our souls’. And what else is new?

* * *

Note to  readers who may have tried to enter a comment: Because so many commercial bloggers use “Comments” to advertise their wares, I’ve  had to filter them out as spam. I regret losing legitimate comments in the process.  Please send your comments directly to me, lwofsy@berkeley.edu .

POSTSCRIPT TO "MY VOTE"

After posting “My Vote” yesterday, I read Mark Handler’s article in the NY Times, “How Hillary Became a Hawk”. 

There is no more chillingly convincing case for keeping the “Bern” going beyond any election cycle. The light should never dim as long as hawks persevere. Clinton’s “inner hawk” is deeply imbedded. It isn’t just a political ploy when she insists on a more aggressive and risky thrust of US military power. She separates herself from Obama’s inclination toward caution and some military restraint even as she expands her embrace of many progressive social causes.

I’m not big on conspiracy theories. But I worry and wonder why the Handler article didn’t appear before Hillary won New York. Now that she feels she has a lock on the nomination, will Clinton be focused on winning votes from Republicans and right-leaning independents who are shocked by Trump, Cruz and the spasms engulfing the GOP? She was quick to tweet her rejection of Charles Koch’s gesture of support. But is she more concerned about thwarting the challenge to the Democratic Party’s establishment than about winning over Sander’s supporters who worry about her “regime change” hawkishness?

I’m not tempted to change the point of view expressed in “My Vote”. The danger from demagogues who would veer toward some neofascist style of governance is all too real. And any notion that an “America First” president might eschew militarism and war is a desperate ahistorical illusion.

The use of US military power to try to run the world has had to be fought under every president since the end of World War II. Repeated failures from Vietnam to Iraq and the entire Middle East have only made the world more dangerous. In the time remaining before the next president is elected, voices that are so-far muted need to be raised for a more realistic and peaceful US policy. No President should be able to claim a mandate for risking more war in this nuclear age. 

One wishes things were easier, less complicated. As often said, 'this is the real world', our country, our times.  Every generation gets its opportunity to press forward. If you live long enough, you may get multiple chances. My thanks to all who are making the call for a “popular revolution” resonate across the USA.

MY VOTE

Media talk and speculation about the primary contests is so non-stop that one hesitates to add one’s bit to the noise. Still, we’re at a point where each of us may be ready to take stock of what’s shaping up and what we see ahead.

Here is my take, with my own set of hopes, fears and uncertainties.

It’s now quite possible that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will face off in November. We don’t know what may yet alter that scenario. What we do know is that the ultra-right GOP has spawned the most serious political assault on democratic government that any of us have lived through in the USA. It’s likely that out of its internal chaos and fierce infighting, the GOP will give voters a candidate, maybe Trump or Cruz, who talks, acts and struts like an American fascist. 

I support and am inspired by the Bernie Sanders campaign and expect to vote for him in the California primaries. I don’t think he will win. I know that  millions of his supporters, especially the young, don’t share this old man’s assessment (or the apparent media “consensus”) . I guess I’m glad they don’t because they are busy changing political “reality”. The Sanders campaign has expanded awareness on the nation’s most fundamental economic and political problems. If the movement generates staying power in the political life of the country, it may prove to be the catalyst for progressive change we so badly need. 

Despite its astonishing accomplishments, the Sanders campaign is obviously not free of flaws and problems. For her part, Hillary Clinton reenforced in the primary debates some worrisome characteristics and connections familiar through her many years of experience in government and politics. I’ll get back to that, but none of my questions challenge an overarching conviction: whether it’s Hillary or Bernie as the nominee, nothing less than the most expansive and united democratic coalition, through and beyond the elections, can defeat the reactionary onslaught that Trump, Cruz and the GOP have unleashed.

It should not be taken for granted that the outlandish GOP spectacle — the racism, xenophobia and open hostility to democratic values — guarantees that a Trump or a Cruz would face certain electoral defeat. The Trump phenomenon reflects deep problems that are not temporary. The mass frustration and anger surfacing in this long electoral season will only grow if our crisis of economic inequality and political disfunction continues to deepen. Pundits like to equate the “populism” of Trump with the Sanders call for a “popular revolution”. History tells us that even though both speak to widespread public discontent, they are as different as night and day. During the great crises of the 1930s, the populism of democratic, trade union and socialist movements accomplished major reforms and strengthened democracy in the USA and many other countries. The outcome of ultra-right populism in those years was very different, never to be forgotten.

It isn’t a simple task to bring about solidarity among all those determined to defeat Trump, Cruz  and what they represent. Neither Clinton nor Sanders can count on automatic support from constituencies that favor one over the other in primary contests. Rivalry between the two candidates has been heated even though each agrees that the other is much better than any GOP alternative. The differences between them are not trivial, and some are so important that they will continue to be battled over long after the next president takes office.

Differences are not necessarily a bad thing, but they are not all of equal significance. Among voters, there are bound to be different judgements and priorities that determine individual choices. Some choose Hillary mainly because they want her to be our first woman President. That judgement is certainly worthy of understanding and respect even if one favors Bernie.

While Sanders’ criticisms of Clinton wound her, I believe they are important and necessary beyond tactical campaign considerations. His all out challenge to Wall Street and the corrupting role of big money in politics is the cornerstone of his campaign’s exceptional appeal, especially among youth. It also offers some guidelines for an ongoing movement to achieve fundamental social change.

The frank airing of differences, fueled by the persistent anti-Wall Street message of the Sanders campaign, has revealed that the base of the Democratic Party (along with a large swath of independents) is well to the left of the Democratic establishment. That pressure has moved Hillary to adjust her positions on some important economic and social justice issues. But the long term connections of the Clintons to big money and Wall Street are an undeniable drag on prospects for basic change if Hillary takes over as President. It isn’t that nothing significant can be gained with a Democratic president who is not Bernie Sanders. However, more important than any individual is whether pressure for a “popular revolution” against oligarchy and for social justice becomes an irrepressible influence in politics and in every battle over vital issues.

In fact, there is a very major issue that calls for a lot more pressure on Hillary Clinton. She has yet to budge on matters of foreign and military policy. It’s not just a matter of “judgement” going back to her support of the US war in Iraq. As Sanders notes, she has been a consistent advocate of interventionist policies aimed at “regime change” despite repeated disasters. She has won the confidence of the neocon war hawks, who are “comfortable” with her even as they trash Obama as “weak”. The Republicans in Congress badgered her over the killing of US diplomats in Libya, but her real culpability was leading the charge for another “regime change” that brought about chaos and an additional base for ISIS. Although she embraces Obama to her advantage in the debates, she fought his reluctance to risk another Libya-style military intervention in Syria and to try diplomacy instead. On Israel and Palestine, her talk to AIPAC was far from reassuring, except perhaps to Netanyahu and the right wing extremists who are expanding the Occupation and assaulting democracy within Israel itself.

There is no more important matter for the United States (or for the whole world) than the need for a pro-peace foreign policy. The top priorities have to be preventing nuclear war and coping effectively with climate change. 

Many thoughts are crowding in as I write, but I know I’ve already gone on too long.  The movement rallied by Sanders is huge and inspiring, but it is certainly not the sum total of progressive expression in our country. There are many committed progressives who are voting for Hillary in the primary contests, some active in important movements on economic needs, equality and social justice. The Sanders campaign has not connected fully with communities of color, especially in the South, yet progressive social change is inconceivable without their full and equal involvement.

Tom Hayden, one of America’s brightest and most committed activists for peace, has supported Sanders, but has decided to vote for Clinton in the California primary. I will vote for Sanders, assuming he’s still running, because I want his core message to resonate through the Presidential election and beyond. But all of us — progressives, liberals, socialists, democrats of every bent — will welcome each other in the good fight to bar Trump, Cruz or any such from the White House.

* * *

News out of Virginia: Gov. Terry McAuliffe, insider Democrat and long-time Clinton ally, "used his executive power on Friday to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 convicted felons, circumventing the Republican-run legislature." Would that have happened without "Black Lives Matter" and the focus on reform of the criminal justice system during the Clinton-Sanders debates?

* * *

Note to  readers who may have tried to enter a comment: Because so many commercial bloggers use “Comments” to advertise their wares, I’ve  had to filter them out as spam. I regret losing legitimate comments in the process.  Please send your comments directly to me, lwofsy@berkeley.edu .

TRUMP OR CRUZ

So now it’s Trump or Cruz or a ‘brokered convention’.

The belated crusade to head off Il Duce Trump has only revealed that the “Grand Old Party” is undergoing a serious change of management.  Where Romney and the old establishment failed miserably, Cruz is vying to take over the rescue mission and to replace the GOP with the T Party in all but name.

With the hatred and potential for violence that the GOP debates have promoted, one can imagine how the Trump and/or Cruz legions will deal with a convention that tries to “steal” the nomination despite primary outcomes.

The debates have given us a sampling of fascist rhetoric and behavior.  Worse may be ahead.

* * *

Note to  readers who may have tried to enter a comment: Because so many commercial bloggers use “Comments” to advertise their wares, I’ve  had to filter them out as spam. I regret losing legitimate comments in the process.  Please send your comments directly to me, lwofsy@berkeley.edu .

SHORT NOTES AFTER SUPER TUESDAY

In all the noise of "super Tuesday", the most noteworthy words may have been those of Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii Congressperson and Iraq vet. She resigned as Vice Chair of The Democratic National Committee in order to support Bernie Sanders, explaining that she acted because of her strong opposition to interventionist foreign policy and wars aimed at "regime change".

* * *   

Although the campaign is far from over, yesterday's's Democratic primary results, following on South Carolina's primary, call for some reflection. All things considered, the Sanders movement has made remarkable headway and is pressing on, with victories yesterday in Colorado, Oklahoma, Minnesota and Vermont. Were it not for Clinton's big advantage in Southern states among older African-American voters, especially women, there might be little or no distance between Sanders and Clinton at this stage. That fact has to be jarring for progressives on the left.

This is far from a simple question and the reasons need to be probed with understanding of the many faceted influences of racism on white Americans, of course including progressives. But one aspect of the seeming disconnect between the Sanders coalition and many people of color may be the failure to appreciate how important Barak Obama's presidency has been and is. Resentment runs very deep over the racist obstructionism and blatant disrespect encountered by our first African-American president. Hillary Clinton recognized this and embraced the Obama legacy (even though as Secretary of State, she tacked with the hawks, leading the charge to the debacle in Libya, endorsing the neocon assessment of Obama and Kerry as "weak"). Now praising Obama, she also has reached out to African-American and Latino women with warmth and affection, repairing her damaging reference in the 1990s to black youth as "predators".

Certainly it has been right and necessary for progressives to disagree with Obama on many counts. If you want a "popular revolution" against the power of the 1%, to change a corrupt political system, to end a war-prone foreign policy and shift vast expenditures from a bloated military budget to domestic needs, a president has to feel the pressure and be held accountable. Nevertheless, a movement to change America has to embrace the historic significance of Obama's presidency and its important accomplishments despite fierce, systemic racist obstructionism. In a sense, the election of Barak Obama presaged the wider movement for change now challenging the anti-democratic rule of the 1%.

No movement to change America can advance without full confidence, participation and joint leadership from America's communities of color.

* * *

Note to  readers who may have tried to enter a comment: Because so many commercial bloggers use “Comments” to advertise their wares, I’ve  had to filter them out as spam. I regret losing legitimate comments in the process.  Please send your comments directly to me, lwofsy@berkeley.edu .

NEW POLITICS!

Inspired by the last GOP debate:
Do you want a president who wets his pants? Or would you rather have one with chronic thirst who sweats profusely?

Now let's see who can spit further!