What a world it will be if our Hitler(Donald Trump) is elected and
faces off with Russia's Hitler(Vladimir Putin ...according to Hillary
Clinton).
Maybe Hillary can play the part of Winston Churchill.
Put them in a rubber room with their hands tied behind their backs and
let them talk themselves to death.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/16/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Coming Democratic Crackup
Published on
Monday, May 16, 2016
by
Consortium News
The Coming Democratic Crackup
Though the mainstream media is focused on Republican divisions, a more
important story could be the coming Democratic crackup, as anti-war
Democrats resist Hillary Clinton’s pro-war agenda
by
Robert Parry
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at
NATO conference in Munich, Germany, Feb. 4 (Photo: Official Defense
Department photo)
If the Democratic Party presses ahead and nominates hawkish Hillary Clinton
for President, it could recreate the conditions that caused the party to
splinter in the late 1960s and early 1970s when anti-war and pro-war
Democrats turned on one another and opened a path for decades of Republican
dominance of the White House.
This new Democratic crackup could come as early as this fall if anti-war
progressives refuse to rally behind Clinton because of her neoconservative
foreign policy – thus infuriating Clinton’s backers – or it could happen in
four years if Clinton wins the White House and implements her militaristic
agenda, including expanding the U.S. war in Syria while continuing other
wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – and challenging Russia on its
borders.
Clinton’s neocon policies in a prospective first term could generate a
“peace” challenge similar to the youth-driven uprising against President
Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War in 1968.
Indeed, in 2020, anti-war elements of the Democratic Party might see little
choice but to seek a candidate willing to challenge an incumbent President
Clinton much as Sen. Eugene McCarthy took on President Johnson, leading
eventually to the chaotic and bloody Chicago convention, which in turn
contributed to Richard Nixon’s narrow victory that fall.
A difference between Johnson and Clinton, however, is that in 1964, LBJ ran
as the “peace candidate” against the hawkish Republican Barry Goldwater
(who
incidentally was supported by a young Hillary Clinton), whereas in 2016,
Clinton has made clear her warlike plans (albeit framing them in
“humanitarian” terms).
After winning a landslide victory against Goldwater, Johnson reversed
himself and plunged into the Vietnam War, fearing he otherwise might be
blamed for “losing” Indochina. With Clinton, there’s no reason to expect a
reversal since she’s made no secret about her plans for invading Syria
under
the guise of creating a “safe zone” and for confronting nuclear-armed
Russia
along its western borders, from Ukraine through the Baltic States. In her
belligerent rhetoric, she has compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to
Hitler.
Courting Bibi
Clinton also has vowed to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship to “the next
level” by embracing right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
who
expects to convince President Hillary Clinton to end any détente with Iran
and put the prospect of bombing Iran back on the table. Clinton would seem
to be an easy sell.
Another feature of the LBJ-Hillary comparison is that the Democratic
Party’s
turn against the Vietnam War in the 1968 and 1972 campaigns prompted a
collection of pro-war intellectuals to bolt the Democratic Party and align
themselves with the Republicans, especially around Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Those Democratic hawks became known as the neoconservatives and remained
attached to the Republican Party for the next 35 years, eventually emerging
as Official Washington’s foreign policy establishment. However, in some
prominent cases (such as Robert Kagan), neocons are now switching over to
Clinton because of the rise of Donald Trump, who rejects the neocon passion
for interventionism.
In other words, just as Johnson’s Vietnam War escalation — and the
resulting
fierce opposition from anti-war Democrats — set in motion the neocons’
defection from the Democrats to the Republicans, Clinton’s enthusiasm for
the Iraq War, her support for escalation of the Afghan War, and her
scheming
for “regime change” wars in Libya and Syria are bringing some neocon hawks
back to their first nesting place in the Democratic Party.
But a President Clinton’s transformation of the Democratic Party into “an
aggressive war party,” whereas under President Barack Obama it has been “a
reluctant war party,” would force principled anti-war Democrats to stop
making excuses and to start trying to expel Clinton’s neocon pro-war
attitudes from the party.
Such an internecine battle over the party’s soul could deeply divide the
Democrats between those supporting Clinton – as “the first woman president”
and because of her liberal attitudes on gay rights and other social issues
–
and those opposing Clinton because of her desire to continue and expand
America’s “perpetual wars.”
The Sanders Resistance
Some of that hostility is already playing out as Clinton backers express
their anger at progressives who balk at lining up for Clinton’s
long-delayed
coronation parade. The stubborn support for Sen. Bernie Sanders, even after
Clinton has seemingly locked up the Democratic nomination, is a forewarning
of the nasty fight ahead.
The prospects are that the animosities will get worse if Clinton loses in
November – with many anti-war Democrats defecting or staying home thus
infuriating the Hillary Democrats – or if Clinton were to win and begin
implementing her neocon foreign policy agenda which will involve further
demonizing “enemies” to justify “regime changes.”
If anti-war Democrats begin to resist, they can expect the Clinton-45
administration to stigmatize them as (fill-in-the-blank) “apologists” and
“stooges” of “enemy” powers, much as happened to protesters against the
Vietnam War and, more recently, to Americans who objected to such U.S.
interventions as the Iraq War in 2003 and the Ukraine coup in 2014.
Yet, few Democratic strategists seem to be aware of this looming chasm
between anti-war and pro-war Democrats. Many of these insiders seem to
believe that the anti-war Democrats will simply fall in line behind Hillary
Clinton out of fear and loathing for Donald Trump. That may be the case for
many, but my conversations with anti-war activists suggest that a
significant number will vote for a third party or might even go for Trump.
Meanwhile, most mainstream media commentators are focused on the divisions
between the pro-Trump and anti-Trump Republicans, giving extensive TV
coverage to various stop-Trump scenarios, even as many establishment
Republicans begin to accommodate to Trump’s populist conquest of the party.
But it’s clear that some prominent Republicans, especially from the neocon
camp, are unalterably opposed to Trump’s election in November, fearing that
he will turn the GOP away from them and toward an “America First”
perspective that would repudiate “regime change” interventions favored by
Israel.
Thus, for many neocon Republicans, a Trump defeat is preferable to a Trump
victory because his defeat would let them reclaim command of the party’s
foreign policy infrastructure. They also could encourage President Clinton
to pursue their neocon agenda – and watch as pro- and anti-war stresses rip
apart the Democratic Party.
So, the establishment Democrats – with their grim determination to
resuscitate Hillary Clinton’s nearly lifeless campaign – may be engaging in
the political equivalent of whistling past the graveyard, as the ghosts of
the party’s Vietnam War crackup hover over Election 2016.
© 2015 Consortium News
Robert Parry
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous
Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and
Nat.
His two previous books are Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush
Dynasty
from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press &
'Project Truth'.
Share This Article
• 0
Tweet
• 112
Share
• 0
Pin
• 1
Share
• 0
Share
• 0
• 0
Share
Related Articles
Sanders Blasts 'Vulture Capitalists' and Colonialism in Puerto Rico
Why Trump Can Lie and No One Seems to Care
When the System Feels Rigged, How Surprising is Convention Mayhem?
Sanders Has It Exactly Right: Majority of Americans Want 'Medicare for All'
System
More in:
War & Peace, U.S.
,
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Democratic Party, Election 2016
Top Comments
PatchworkCelt
1 hours ago
...that hostility is already playing out as Clinton backers express their
anger at progressives who balk at lining up for Clinton’s long-delayed
coronation parade. The stubborn support for Sen. Bernie Sanders... is a
forewarning of the nasty fight ahead.
The nasty fight is not ahead anymore; it's on now. The shut-down of the
Nevada party convention was nothing short of a coup d'état. The pretense of
democratic leanings by the DLC-Democrats has been revealed as a pack of
lies.
Now it gets interesting. It's pretty clear that most writers here will not
support Hillary, but what about the young people who constitute the rising
tide of dissatisfaction with the status quo? Will they consider the
cancer-ridden DP to be worth saving, or will they punt? So much of today's
politics feels like "Nero fiddling" to me, in the context of climate
reality, and I think that the younger generations might well keep that
thought in mind more than we here sometimes tend to remember.
Interesting times ahead...
View / Reply
(Click to see more comments or to join the conversation)
Sign Up for Newsletter
Today's Views
Jake Johnson
The Bitter Consequences of Corporate America's War on Unions...
Richard Eskow
What’s Killing the American Middle Class?
Robert Parry
The Coming Democratic Crackup
Peter Van Buren
Five Ways the Newest Story in Iraq and Syria is... That There Is No New
Story
Neal Gabler
Why Trump Can Lie and No One Seems to Care
Tom Engelhardt
“The People,” Missing in Action in America’s Wars
Ted Howard, John Duda
State Legislatures Attacking Community Wealth Building
Immanuel Wallerstein
Brazil: Coup or Fiasco?
Anna Claussen
Climate Democracy for Rural Communities
Lindsay Koshgarian
Our Failure to Invest in Infrastructure Is Literally Making Us Sick:
#JusticeforFlint
Jonathan Marshall
Escalations in a New Cold War
Paul Pillar
Why, and How, Congress Should Enact an AUMF
More Views
News That Matters
Sanders Blasts 'Vulture Capitalists' and Colonialism in Puerto Rico
'Stunning': CIA Admits 'Mistakenly' Deleting Copy of Senate Torture Report
April 2016 Hottest on Record as 'Climate Emergency' Grows
Sanders Has It Exactly Right: Majority of Americans Want 'Medicare for All'
System
When the System Feels Rigged, How Surprising is Convention Mayhem?
Supreme Court Punts Birth Control Case, Leaving Women's Rights "in Limbo"
An Insiders' NSA: Latest Documents Aim to 'Broaden Access' to Snowden
Archive
Canadians Propose 'Elegant Solution' for Country's Runaway Emissions
'Not a Symbol, A Signal': Wave of Direct Actions Points to Fossil-Free
Future
For Inspiring 'A New Agenda,' Naomi Klein Wins 2016 Sydney Peace Prize
More
News
Further
I Am His Hands. He Is My Eyes.
Enough slime this week. So meet two men from the Chinese village of Yeli:
Jia Haixia, who is blind, and his best friend Jia Wenqi, who has no arms.
For 13 years, they have spent their days planting trees; today, over 10,000
guard the village "like green soldiers." "When we work together, two become
one," says Haixia. "It may be hard financially, but we're so delighted
spiritually." Humanity may yet prevail.
Read More...
More Further
Connect With Us
About Common Dreams
Our Mission:
To inform. To inspire.
To ignite change for the common good.
Common Dreams has been providing breaking news & views for the progressive
community since 1997. We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and
100% reader supported.
• About Common Dreams
• Key Staff
• Writers' Guidelines
• The Commons - Community Guidelines
• Privacy Policy
Contact Us
Common Dreams
P.O. Box 443
Portland, ME 04112-0443
USA
via Email:
• Editor
• News Tips?
• Article Submissions
• News Release Submissions
• Webmaster
207.775.0488 (voice)
207.775.0489 (fax)
Common Dreams brings you the news that matters.
DONATE
Sign up for Newsletter
Click to Sign Up
Connect With Us
Skip to main content
//
• DONATE
• SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Monday, May 16, 2016
• Home
• World
• U.S.
• Canada
• Climate
• War & Peace
• Economy
• Rights
• Solutions
• Election 2016
• Break Free 2016
• Bernie Sanders
• Hillary Clinton
• Donald Trump
• Panama Papers
The Coming Democratic Crackup
Published on
Monday, May 16, 2016
by
Consortium News
The Coming Democratic Crackup
Though the mainstream media is focused on Republican divisions, a more
important story could be the coming Democratic crackup, as anti-war
Democrats resist Hillary Clinton’s pro-war agenda
by
Robert Parry
• 14 Comments
•
• Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton at NATO conference in Munich, Germany, Feb. 4 (Photo: Official
Defense Department photo)
• If the Democratic Party presses ahead and nominates hawkish Hillary
Clinton for President, it could recreate the conditions that caused the
party to splinter in the late 1960s and early 1970s when anti-war and
pro-war Democrats turned on one another and opened a path for decades of
Republican dominance of the White House.
• This new Democratic crackup could come as early as this fall if
anti-war progressives refuse to rally behind Clinton because of her
neoconservative foreign policy – thus infuriating Clinton’s backers – or it
could happen in four years if Clinton wins the White House and implements
her militaristic agenda, including expanding the U.S. war in Syria while
continuing other wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – and challenging
Russia on its borders.
• Clinton’s neocon policies in a prospective first term could generate
a “peace” challenge similar to the youth-driven uprising against President
Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War in 1968.
• Indeed, in 2020, anti-war elements of the Democratic Party might see
little choice but to seek a candidate willing to challenge an incumbent
President Clinton much as Sen. Eugene McCarthy took on President Johnson,
leading eventually to the chaotic and bloody Chicago convention, which in
turn contributed to Richard Nixon’s narrow victory that fall.
A difference between Johnson and Clinton, however, is that in 1964, LBJ ran
as the “peace candidate” against the hawkish Republican Barry Goldwater
(who
incidentally was supported by a young Hillary Clinton), whereas in 2016,
Clinton has made clear her warlike plans (albeit framing them in
“humanitarian” terms).
After winning a landslide victory against Goldwater, Johnson reversed
himself and plunged into the Vietnam War, fearing he otherwise might be
blamed for “losing” Indochina. With Clinton, there’s no reason to expect a
reversal since she’s made no secret about her plans for invading Syria
under
the guise of creating a “safe zone” and for confronting nuclear-armed
Russia
along its western borders, from Ukraine through the Baltic States. In her
belligerent rhetoric, she has compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to
Hitler.
Courting Bibi
Clinton also has vowed to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship to “the next
level” by embracing right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
who
expects to convince President Hillary Clinton to end any détente with Iran
and put the prospect of bombing Iran back on the table. Clinton would seem
to be an easy sell.
Another feature of the LBJ-Hillary comparison is that the Democratic
Party’s
turn against the Vietnam War in the 1968 and 1972 campaigns prompted a
collection of pro-war intellectuals to bolt the Democratic Party and align
themselves with the Republicans, especially around Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Those Democratic hawks became known as the neoconservatives and remained
attached to the Republican Party for the next 35 years, eventually emerging
as Official Washington’s foreign policy establishment. However, in some
prominent cases (such as Robert Kagan), neocons are now switching over to
Clinton because of the rise of Donald Trump, who rejects the neocon passion
for interventionism.
In other words, just as Johnson’s Vietnam War escalation — and the
resulting
fierce opposition from anti-war Democrats — set in motion the neocons’
defection from the Democrats to the Republicans, Clinton’s enthusiasm for
the Iraq War, her support for escalation of the Afghan War, and her
scheming
for “regime change” wars in Libya and Syria are bringing some neocon hawks
back to their first nesting place in the Democratic Party.
But a President Clinton’s transformation of the Democratic Party into “an
aggressive war party,” whereas under President Barack Obama it has been “a
reluctant war party,” would force principled anti-war Democrats to stop
making excuses and to start trying to expel Clinton’s neocon pro-war
attitudes from the party.
Such an internecine battle over the party’s soul could deeply divide the
Democrats between those supporting Clinton – as “the first woman president”
and because of her liberal attitudes on gay rights and other social issues
–
and those opposing Clinton because of her desire to continue and expand
America’s “perpetual wars.”
The Sanders Resistance
Some of that hostility is already playing out as Clinton backers express
their anger at progressives who balk at lining up for Clinton’s
long-delayed
coronation parade. The stubborn support for Sen. Bernie Sanders, even after
Clinton has seemingly locked up the Democratic nomination, is a forewarning
of the nasty fight ahead.
The prospects are that the animosities will get worse if Clinton loses in
November – with many anti-war Democrats defecting or staying home thus
infuriating the Hillary Democrats – or if Clinton were to win and begin
implementing her neocon foreign policy agenda which will involve further
demonizing “enemies” to justify “regime changes.”
If anti-war Democrats begin to resist, they can expect the Clinton-45
administration to stigmatize them as (fill-in-the-blank) “apologists” and
“stooges” of “enemy” powers, much as happened to protesters against the
Vietnam War and, more recently, to Americans who objected to such U.S.
interventions as the Iraq War in 2003 and the Ukraine coup in 2014.
Yet, few Democratic strategists seem to be aware of this looming chasm
between anti-war and pro-war Democrats. Many of these insiders seem to
believe that the anti-war Democrats will simply fall in line behind Hillary
Clinton out of fear and loathing for Donald Trump. That may be the case for
many, but my conversations with anti-war activists suggest that a
significant number will vote for a third party or might even go for Trump.
Meanwhile, most mainstream media commentators are focused on the divisions
between the pro-Trump and anti-Trump Republicans, giving extensive TV
coverage to various stop-Trump scenarios, even as many establishment
Republicans begin to accommodate to Trump’s populist conquest of the party.
But it’s clear that some prominent Republicans, especially from the neocon
camp, are unalterably opposed to Trump’s election in November, fearing that
he will turn the GOP away from them and toward an “America First”
perspective that would repudiate “regime change” interventions favored by
Israel.
Thus, for many neocon Republicans, a Trump defeat is preferable to a Trump
victory because his defeat would let them reclaim command of the party’s
foreign policy infrastructure. They also could encourage President Clinton
to pursue their neocon agenda – and watch as pro- and anti-war stresses rip
apart the Democratic Party.
So, the establishment Democrats – with their grim determination to
resuscitate Hillary Clinton’s nearly lifeless campaign – may be engaging in
the political equivalent of whistling past the graveyard, as the ghosts of
the party’s Vietnam War crackup hover over Election 2016.
© 2015 Consortium News
