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!

"LOW BLOW"

Sander's called it a "low blow". Clinton has suddenly laid claim to the Obama legacy and chastised Bernie because he sometimes has taken issue with the President.

Aside from the injustice to Bernie, who has supported Obama while exercising the right to voice disagreements, Hillary has turned matters upside down. It is no secret that the former Secretary of State has been hawkish on foreign and military policy, that she along with the neocons has regarded Obama as "weak".  That's why the current chief neocon advocate, Robert Kagan, who bitterly opposes any Obama/Kerry effort to try diplomacy instead of greater military force, can say of Clinton:  “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy.” (Kagan's wife is Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian Affairs, who famously said "Fuck the EU" in her eagerness to manipulate "regime change" in the Ukraine.) 

As the primary campaigns unfold, candidates take stock and adapt to the unexpected. Hillary has insisted that the US should set up a "no fly zone" in Syria, a proposal that Obama has opposed as irresponsible and dangerous. Instead, Kerry and Russia's Lavrov have agreed to take joint steps to relieve the extreme humanitarian crisis and are in difficult negotiations for a cease fire and an end to the civil war. Now Hillary expresses support, even takes credit, for that agreement as well as for the P+1 (UN Security Council and Germany) agreement with Iran. At least that puts space between her and the neocons, the GOP buffoons, and — though she's unlikely to acknowledge it — her friend Netanyahu. 

In the Sanders-Clinton debates, foreign and military policy is the weakest area. Clinton boasts long experience, but ignores the fact that decades of US foreign policy experience are rich in failures and disastrous wars. Surely Sanders has a point in stressing judgment, opposition to the Iraq War as well as to the whole  "regime change" hubris of US policy. The Sanders legions are beginning to shake up US politics because they dare to challenge Wall Street and the billionaire class. Not surprisingly, there's a lot more boldness on the domestic consequences of the power of the 1% than on its relevance to fateful issues of war and peace. There is a crying need for new thinking and direction to avoid repeating catastrophes of the last century. So far Clinton offers no change of course, and voices for a more realistic and peaceful foreign policy are relatively subdued. 

In a climate of conformity to assumptions of American "exceptionalism" (supremacy), it can be intimidating to speak some truths. On some issues, the US can stand almost alone in its denial of what's plain to see. Cases in point are US total commitment to supporting the governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Everyone sees that Israel has lurched to the right, that the illegal occupation is expanding, that democracy is being destroyed by racist extremists within and beyond the government. Many Jews, perhaps most, are appalled. It is as if Trump, Cruz or Rubio were to become President of the USA. Yet Clinton repeats with pride her ritual pledge of loyalty to Netanyahu, and seems to dare anyone to take the slightest exception. 

On another issue, when Sanders is pressed on how his programs would be paid for, it's disappointing that he hesitates to challenge our extreme military spending other than to mention waste within the Pentagon — testimony again to a climate of intimidation fostered by those who profit from military adventurism and imperialism all over the world.

Looking ahead, peace depends on the same courage and passion of millions, especially a young generation, beginning to say that this land and our lives belong to us. "Enough is enough."

* * *

Isobel Wilkerson, author of an historic and beautiful book on "the Great Migration", The Warmth of Other Suns, has written an article that could well be an added chapter: "Emmet Till and Tamar Rice, Sons of the Great Migration"

* * *

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 loosing legitimate comments in the process.  Please send your comments directly to me, lwofsy@berkeley.edu .

....AND A WORD ABOUT DAVID BROOKS

My blog has gone silent over the last six weeks. My energy has been sapped by a succession of heavy colds. Nothing complicated, but giving into lethargy seems to help me keep more comfortable.

Of course, relaxation has its limits in this crazy world. I thrill to the great awakening that Bernie Sanders and the movement around him is bringing to the political scene.  In contrast, what happened to Flint tears at the heart of human decency; how can monsters like Governor Snyder escape just retribution? Then there is the rare piece of great news, the grand jury indictment of of the criminals who tried to frame Planned Parenthood.

In the primaries of the 2016 election, two things have already been proven beyond reasonable doubt: 1) the GOP has moved so far to the right that election of a Republican president could bring us to the threshold of an American style fascism; 2) there is a vast potential for a popular democratic left that can assure defeat of the GOP and shift the balance of power in favor of a new political generation bent on economic equality and full social justice.

The coming months of the electoral contest will produce many shifts and challenges. Tom Hayden has written a thoughtful analysis that's worth keeping in mind as the excitement rises. The crucial challenge is to stay bold in advancing the movement sparked by Sanders and inspired also by "Black Lives Matter", combined with commitment to unity and cooperation despite differences among all who seek to turn the tide against a GOP ultra-right takeover.

Before returning to hibernation with my lingering cold, a word about Times columnist, David Brooks. Along with many who have served the "old guard" GOP establishment, he's in a panic. He pleads Stay Sane America, Please! Worried that Trump and Cruz may be sinking the ship, he first uses the dishonest media ploy of lumping them as "extremists" with Bernie Sanders. That's like equating Flint's poisoned river with a fresh water spring. It's par for the course for "journalism" that uses "radical", "socialist" and sometimes even "liberal" as dirty words.

But, David. You own this GOP. You helped make it what it is. You wrote all those supportive words for Bush and Cheney and their wars. You had kind words for Newt Gingrich and even flirted with the notion of a Rick Perry presidency only days before his bid flamed out. And did you ever complain when the racists ganged up on Obama and openly pledged to undermine his presidency, or when "Black Lives Matter" and Planned Parenthood came under indecent assault? Were you alarmed by the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision, or by the money and actions of the Koch Brothers and the Adelsons?

Your desperate wish for Rubio to win the GOP nomination wouldn't change what the GOP has become. Rubio's hope is that he can pick up supporters from Trump and Cruz, carry their outrageous programs forward while making them seem less outrageous to people who follow David Brooks.

***

Note to Zinn Reader, Henry F. and other 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 loosing legitimate comments in the process.  Please send your comments directly to me, lwofsy@berkeley.edu .

IT'S NOT JUST TRUMP

Thanks to the “occupy” movement, INEQUALITY, 1% vs. 99%, can no longer be covered up. It’s at the center of social and political debate, and Thomas Picketty (among others) has shown that it is intrinsic to capitalism, more and more pronounced as the system ages.

Now Donald Trump is propelling another phenomenon out of the shadows of denial, and suddenly the word “FASCIST” is being uttered by many who derided use of the term as inappropriate in the context of US politics. News commentators are beginning to worry. Even Russ Douthat, conservative columnist of the NY Times, is taking the emerging voice of fascism seriously, although he worries mainly that Trump, the would be “Il Duce”, spells trouble for the GOP brand.

Does the problem begin and end with Donald Trump?

He’s just the boldest, the least inhibited in inflaming the racist violence that has given him a solid lead in the GOP race. Look at the 
substance, at the cardinal issues before the country. Is he more of a war hawk than the rest of the contenders? Is he more committed than the others to fomenting violence against Planned Parenthood? Isn’t the smell of fascism also in the air surrounding Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio as they vie to win Trump’s supporters when (or if) his candidacy fades. And what of Carly Fiorina, lying murderously about Planned Parenthood, hoping to ride that lie to a place on the GOP ticket?

The fact is that the seeds of fascism are as endemic to aging capitalism as the spiraling of extreme inequality. Fascist tendencies are an inevitable byproduct of oligarchy, of obscene wealth and power in the hands of a few families. The Koch brothers, Adelson, and a few others want political control as unlimited as their fortunes. The “Citizens United” ruling of the Supreme Court gives them a green light, subordinating democracy to the rule of corporate wealth.

Fascist voices are certainly not new to our American political history. But what’s happening now is not just a reminder of evil demagogues and shameful experiences from times gone by. Today’s flirtation by the ultra-right with fascist “remedies” is rooted in frustration with declining US power in a chaotic world and also its fear of demographic realities that are making the country harder to control.

The extreme right’s fascist temptation is more dangerous than ever because it exploits fears over fanatic acts that inflict the experience of war and terror on randomly targeted Americans. In the wake of the Paris massacres, such fears have already propelled fascistic parties to significant electoral victories in France and elsewhere in Europe.

Fear can determine political outcomes. But as much fear as Trump and his mates seek to profit from, they are also arousing a counter fear, a fear of themselves, of fascist ideas and racist demagogy.

It may not be beside the point to note the response to the proliferation of videos that reveal the face of fascism in recurring acts of police violence against black Americans. Look at Chicago and around the country. More and more people say enough, don’t give in to fear, and tremors are shaking more than a few political and police dynasties. But that’s another story.

The Trump and GOP assault on Muslims, Mexicans, immigrants and refugees may blow back on them as their fascist affinity is recognized. That’s why, as Douthat reflects, the GOP establishment is in a tizzy over Trump’s brazen appeal to its militantly racist base. Trump is spilling the fascist beans. Most Americans may not be willing to swallow.

URI AVNERY: THE REIGN OF ABSURDITY

Thanks to John Whitbeck for pointing me to this article, published today in Jewish Business News. It is a brilliant essay on terrorism and politics. In focusing on 'absurdity' and the wrong-headedness of most of the world's heads of state, it doesn't delve into the clash of imperial ambitions that further international chaos and raise the specter of another world conflagration. But that's for other articles, some of which Uri Avnery has already written with his customary sparkle of wisdom and wit. 

There is no such thing as “international terrorism”.

To declare war on “international terrorism” is nonsense. Politicians who do so are either fools or cynics, and probably both.

Terrorism is a weapon. Like cannon. We would laugh at somebody who declares war on “international artillery”. A cannon belongs to an army, and serves the aims of that army. The cannon of one side fire against the cannon of the other.

Terrorism is a method of operation. It is often used by oppressed peoples, including the French Resistance to the Nazis in WW II. We would laugh at anyone who declared war on “international resistance”.

Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military thinker, famously said that “war is the continuation of politics by other means”. If he had lived with us today, he might have said: “Terrorism is a continuation of policy by other means.”

Terrorism means, literally, to frighten the victims into surrendering to the will of the terrorist.

Terrorism is a weapon. Generally it is the weapon of the weak. Of those who have no atom bombs, like the ones which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which terrorized the Japanese into surrender. Or the aircraft which destroyed Dresden in the (vain) attempt to frighten the Germans into giving up.

Since most of the groups and countries using terrorism have different aims, often contradicting each other, there is nothing “international” about it. Each terrorist campaign has a character of its own. Not to mention the fact that nobody considers himself (or herself) a terrorist, but rather a fighter for God, Freedom or Whatever....

Read more