I'm going to forward it anyway.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A watershed election for U.S. imperialism
The history and analysis in this article are absolutely amazing. If only I
could get people to read it, I mean, people not on this list. I'd forward it
all over the place.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey ;
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:38 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] A watershed election for U.S. imperialism
https://socialistaction.org/2017/02/12/a-watershed-election-for-u-s-imperialism/
A watershed election for U.S. imperialism
/ 3 days ago
feb-2017-immigrants-nyBy LYNN HENDERSON
The 2016 presidential election concluded with the improbable election of
real estate billionaire and reality show celebrity Donald Trump. In this
historic 2016 election the dual parties of U.S. capitalism ended up
presenting the American electorate with the choice between two
individuals who were universally recognized as the most unpopular,
distrusted candidates in the history of U.S. presidential politics. How
did this happen? Was it just a fluke? Was it just the accidental luck of
the draw?
A large army of professional media commentators, pundits and political
gurus continue to struggle mightily to explain the election and ponder
its results. Initially the best they could do was comment that “people
were angry.” While true, this was hardly an adequate explanation. People
have been angry for quite some time now. Continued anger alone is an
insufficient explanation. The American “middle-class” (a more accurate
label would be “working class”) have seen their standard of living and
future prospects not only stagnate but steadily decline for well over
three decades. Until recently most hoped, and half convinced themselves
that this situation was temporary—that there would be a reversal in this
long downturn for the “middle class” and a return to more “normal”
times. This election cycle however was faced with a dramatic new shift
in sentiment. In the main, the “middle-class” concluded that the steady
deterioration in their prospects was not temporary but permanent. Not
the function of some recurring business cycle, which would eventually be
reversed, but rather something much more sweeping and fundamental.
And increasingly they correctly concluded that the existing political
parties and the entire body of politicians that make them up, not only
had no solutions, but no desire or self-interest in challenging this.
They also knew of course that not everybody was hurting. Under the joint
leadership and policies of both these capitalist parties the “one
percent” has been doing fabulously well, even outstripping in
concentrated wealth the fabled “one percent” of the notorious “Gilded
Age.” This then was the reality in which the nation’s two party system
approached the 2016 presidential elections.
Despite all this, in smug and blind confidence, these two parties then
marched ahead with their original plans to present the U.S. electorate
with the “democratic” privilege of choosing between another Bush and
another Clinton as the nation’s 45th president. Their arrogance stunned
much of the American electorate and opened the door for the improbable
candidacies of two “outsiders” with no real support in the official
two-party system. One was the billionaire reality TV host Donald Trump,
the other a self-proclaimed “socialist” Bernie Sanders. Their
candidacies were universally written off with derision and ridicule by
all the political experts and commentators. Donald Trump became the
official candidate of the Republican Party and Bernie Sanders came
within a hair’s breadth of being the Democratic Party candidate despite
an organized conspiracy by virtually the entire Democratic National
Committee to secretly smear and sabotage his candidacy in favor of their
anointed, Hillary Clinton.
The seemingly bizarre unfolding of the 2016 presidential election is not
the product of some unfathomable accident or fluke. On one hand, much of
the U.S. middle-class/working class, for the first time, lost all
confidence in the ability of either wing of America’s two-party monopoly
to address and reverse their long decline. In their desperate search for
some alternative we had the completely unforeseen emergence of the Trump
and Sanders candidacies. But even more fundamentally the election
represents the confused, disruptive reaction of America’s ruling elite
to the painful ending of an almost century-long era of U.S. global
domination. The present two party system and its political actors have
been thrown into complete disarray by this new reality. Whatever name
they may have used in the past to describe it—“American
Exceptionalism”—“Leader of the Free World”—they certainly never
contemplated its demise. Despite their growing confusion and deepening
internal dissent the U.S. ruling elite are determined that the costs of
this new reality will be borne not by them but by America’s increasingly
hard pressed middle-class/working class.
The U.S. middle-class and the American century
The mass U.S. middle-class of today is a relatively recent development.
It was primarily created through WWII and its aftermath. Prior to that,
what was then called the middle-class was a much smaller and narrower
phenomenon consisting primarily of professionals, small businessmen,
managers, etc.
The United States won WWII. It won WWII big. It won WWII not just
against the Axis powers but against its own allies as well. With the
exception of the United States, the entire capitalist world came out of
WWII in a shambles. Europe’s industrial plants were destroyed or in
decay, its working classes were reduced, dispersed, and demoralized, its
political structures in turmoil, and its national economies for the most
part flat broke.
But the United States on the other hand came out of WWII immeasurably
stronger in every way than when it entered the war. U.S. industrial
capacity had dramatically expanded, incorporating all the new
technologies in manufacturing, electronics, chemicals, etc., developed
during the war. The U.S. working class was intact with better skills and
education than prior to the war. The U.S. was politically, militarily
and financially the completely dominant capitalist nation in the world.
The war ushered in what Time/Life founder and publisher Henry Luce,
triumphantly proclaimed as the coming “American Century.” The usual laws
of capitalist international competition were temporarily in suspension.
The dollar, freed from any monetary gold backing, was enthroned as the
reserve currency for the entire capitalist world replacing the pound
sterling. This gave the dollar and U.S. capitalism a uniquely
advantageous position—the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign
bills in its own currency, which it could just print. This status lasted
for decades. But not for a century.
This utterly unique and yet predictably unsustainable hegemony provided
U.S. capitalism with the opportunity for an extended period of
prosperity and astoundingly large profits. Faced with a strong trade
union movement which had emerged out of the “Great Depression,” U.S.
capitalism concluded that its best course was to concede some wage
concessions where necessary, rather than disrupt the immense profit
opportunities available to them by avoidable class conflicts. For now
there were bigger fish to fry.
But this new era provided for more than just a general rise in wages. To
take maximum advantage of these unique opportunities required a more
skilled and educated workforce. For the first time, university and
college education was made available and affordable to large sections of
the working class through the GI Bill and other subsidies. Between 1944
and 1971 the U.S. government spent $95 billion on the G.I. Bill. The
general prosperity created in this era also sustained a new consumer
economy, primarily benefiting but not entirely limited to the white
working class. This was marked by increased home ownership, widespread
automobile ownership, leisure time activities, etc.
Continued class struggle
While this unique period of prosperity allowed for some tactical
concessions to America’s middle-class/working class it did not mean the
class struggle was suspended. U.S. capitalism also used the combination
of post WWII prosperity and its long reactionary cold war with the
Soviet Union to housebreak the American labor movement. Through red
baiting, the Taft Hartley Act, and support for “right-to-work”
legislation they cleansed the labor movement of the class struggle
radicals who were central to revitalizing the union movement coming out
of the 1930s. They were able to reshape the trade union leadership into
a conservatized bureaucracy utterly tied to the capitalist two-party
system, converting it into little more than an adjunct to the Democratic
Party. Because the Democratic Party was never a working-class party, it
never initiated unions. However, once unions were formed the Democrats
became quite good at absorbing them into their political machines.
To their immense advantage they also used their world hegemony to create
a series of international institutions, which were utterly dominated and
controlled by U.S. capitalism. Among these was the already mentioned
reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar. Equally important was the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and the European Union.
With the inevitable reemergence of intense international capitalist
competition the hegemony of the “American Century” began to come to an
end. How has U.S. capitalism responded to this new global reality? For
one, in response to growing global competition in manufacturing, it
shifted its profit making focus. It concluded that the quickest,
largest, and easiest profits were now to be made not in the making and
selling of products, but in the so-called financial sector. Between 1973
and 1985, the U.S. financial sector accounted for about 16 percent of
domestic corporate profits. In the 1990s, it ranged from 21 percent to
30 percent. In the recent decades, it soared to as high as 41 percent of
all U.S. domestic corporate profits.
With the closing of this long post-WWII prosperity, U.S. capitalism also
returned to the unavoidable necessity to cut wages and working
conditions for the U.S. middle-class/working class. One typically
revealing example as documented by Stephanie Coontz in her excellent
article: Why the White Working Class Ditched Clinton—between 1947 and
1979, real wages for an average meatpacking worker, adjusted for
inflation, increased by around 80 percent, reaching almost
$40,000-per-year, a salary that could support a comfortable middle-class
lifestyle. But between 1979 and 2012 the average meat packer’s wage
declined by nearly 30 percent, to about $27,000. Also the need to
quickly upgrade the educational level of the domestic workforce was no
longer required or “cost effective” for U.S. capitalism. Policies were
put in place to return affordable college and university training to the
province of the relatively wealthy.
As U.S. hegemony began to weaken, the international institutions it
created and dominated since the close of WWII began to unravel. Despite
U.S. capitalism’s increasingly frantic attempts to shore them up, this
unraveling has significantly impaired their former ability to direct and
control events. Last June’s “Brexit” vote by Britain, one of U.S.
imperialism’s most loyal and reliable postwar allies, to leave the
European Union was almost as big a shock then as the November Trump
election was later on.
An earlier and at least equally stunning action was the August 2013 vote
by the British Parliament refusing to support Obama’s imminent move to
launch yet another Middle-East war, this time against Syria. The
significance of this action and its aftermath is worthwhile reviewing as
it has never been honestly reported and was largely ignored even by much
of the American left.
The war against Syria
Despite the disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S.
imperialism now under the Obama administration, moved to initiate yet
another major war in the Middle East, this time against Syria. Another
regime change was projected with Obama’s announcement that Syria’s
president Assad “must go.” The “mushroom cloud” justification this time
centered on the use of chemical weapons, supposedly breaking a precedent
adhered to by “all civilized countries” going back to the end of WWI.
Ignored by the Obama Administration were the massive U.S. use of the
deadly chemical “agent orange” in Vietnam and the massive use of poison
gas during the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988) by Saddam Hussein against the
Kurds and Iranian military. The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in that
war and made no criticism of his use of poison gas. We know, through
U.S. documents leaked by Manning, Snowden, and others that the U.S.
government even used its satellite network to provide targeting
intelligence to the Iraqi military during this U.S. backed war with Iran.
As Obama prepared to go to war against Syria it was clear that his only
real partner would be Britain. The support for the Bush era Middle East
wars had over time been reduced to the so-called “coalition of the
willing” which eventually became little more than Britain and places
like American Samoa. Then to the shock of everyone, and especially U.S.
imperialism, the British Parliament refused to sanction this latest war.
With a fleet of American war ships and aircraft in place and publicly
poised to launch a massive air and missile attack on Syria within days
or at most weeks, Obama remained committed to go ahead. Now however he
felt required to have a supporting war vote in Congress, something he
had previously asserted was unnecessary. He was convinced he could get
such a vote and orchestrated a crash media campaign to build support in
Congress and with the American public.
Despite little in the way of an organized antiwar movement there was an
immediate and spontaneous outpouring of opposition to Obama’s war vote.
Congress was inundated with thousands of messages demanding they vote
no. As the date set for the vote loomed it became clear it would be
defeated. Such a result would have been an unmitigated disaster for U.S.
imperialism. As far as I know, never in the history of the nation has a
presidential authorization for war been voted down.
The Obama administration and U.S. imperialism were forced to retreat. A
cover strategy was concocted to allow for and explain away this retreat.
Suddenly at a relatively minor news conference a reporter asked
Secretary of State Kerry if there was anything Assad could do to avoid
the impending U.S. attack. Supposedly, Kerry off-handedly replied, “…
only if Assad agreed to get rid of all his chemical weapons.” It is
virtually certain this reporter’s question was a plant. A deal with
Assad on chemical weapons, brokered by Putin, was then quickly
announced, negating the need for U.S. military action and avoiding the
scheduled war vote in Congress.
The most immediate cause of this imperialist defeat was the massive,
spontaneous and successful opposition to the proposed congressional war
vote. This was a major victory by and for the American people. The aid
of Putin in helping to pull Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire didn’t
come without a cost. Obama had to acquiesce to Russia’s military and
diplomatic intervention in the Syrian civil war in support of the Assad
regime. More broadly, the unfolding of the Syrian-Obama scenario
demonstrated at each stage the continuing collapse of U.S. post WWII
hegemony and its decreased ability to control and shape events.
Today we continue to be inundated in the popular media with references
to the “Special Relationship” between the U.S. and Britain as if it is
some kind of mystical eternal institution. The U.S. for most of its
history has had a hostile relationship with Britain and its Imperial
Empire. The so-called “Special Relationship” is another product of WWII
and its aftermath, which like much else is now unraveling. As a matter
of fact, the term itself was first invented by Winston Churchill in his
infamous 1946 Fulton, Missouri bellicose speech launching the cold war
with the Soviet Union.
Imperialist institutions challenged
The U.S. created World Bank, which it has used to its advantage in
directing and controlling major infrastructure investments throughout
the world since WWII is also being challenged. More than a year ago
China announced it was launching a competitor to the World Bank, the
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. U.S. imperialism immediately moved
to isolate and kill the Chinese initiative by pressuring its World Bank
allies to boycott it. Almost immediately Britain broke ranks with the
United States, becoming a member in the fall of 2014. Other members of
the European Union, including France and Germany quickly followed along
with 27 other nations.
Closely related to the World Bank is the International Monetary Fund
(I.M.F.). In the global economy U.S. imperialism set up following WWII,
the I.M.F. functions as the thug debt-collector and enforcer. In any
national financial crisis the I.M.F. insures that the first priority
will be the repayment of debt obligations to the international banks. To
guarantee this, the I.M.F. imposes cuts in wages, pensions, social
safety nets and increases taxes on the middle-class/working class. It is
the designer and enforcer of austerity. In Europe today its policies are
generating increasingly fierce resistance, especially in Greece, Spain
and Italy. Given its increasing unpopularity, the I.M.F. has a difficult
time finding credible people to act as its director. Former director Mr.
Strauss-Kahn had to resign following accusations that he sexually
assaulted a maid in a New York City hotel. The present director,
Christine Lagarde, was convicted in December of criminal charges linked
to the misuse of public funds. Despite her conviction the 24 directors
of the fund decided not to remove her explaining: “With international
elites and their institutions facing populist criticism amid political
and social change in the United States and Europe this was not the time
to leave the I.M.F. rudderless.”
The diminished ability for U.S. imperialism to direct and control events
is reflected in the failure to consummate the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP). TPP was a major element in Obama’s “new tilt” toward Asia, and
was never primarily just about trade. The deal, which excluded China,
was conceived as a vital move for shoring up U.S. economic and military
influence in this fastest-growing and strategically vital part of the
world. Resistance to the deal is deeper than U.S. domestic opposition to
yet another unpopular trade pact. With the end of U.S. post WWII
hegemony it is China that is now the largest trading partner for most of
the countries in the region. The Philippines, despite its long status as
a colony and semi-colony of the United States, has under its new
president, Rodrigo Duterte, begun dramatically shifting away from U.S.
influence, and toward China instead. Even a long-time ally like
Australia has shown little enthusiasm for TPP announcing just last month
plans to push ahead with a Chinese-led trade pact that would cover Asian
nations from Japan to India but exclude the United States. Perhaps even
more revealing, Australia has also resisted pressure to join the United
States in naval patrols in the South China Sea supposedly designed to
ensure freedom of international traffic.
Of all the post WWII institutions created by and for U.S. imperialism
none was more central to implementing the era of U.S. hegemony than
NATO. What made NATO possible, and the glue which held it, and the
otherwise competing capitalist nations in Europe together for so long,
was the existence and threat of the Soviet Union. This was not
essentially a military threat but rather a philosophical and ideological
threat. Even under what emerged as the conservative, bureaucratized
leadership of Stalinism, the example of the Soviet Union and the 1917
Russian Revolution posed a revolutionary alternative for workers that
was a continuous threat to every capitalist regime in Europe. With the
collapse of the Soviet Union the NATO of old began coming apart and its
days are now numbered.
NATO as any kind of unified bloc, especially any kind of unified bloc
following U.S. imperialism’s direction and lead is disintegrating. The
ability to get NATO support for U.S. directed sanctions against Russia,
Iran or anyone else is becoming increasingly difficult. The recent
evolution of NATO member, Turkey, is revealing. Not only does Turkey
apparently believe that its national interests, at least for now, are
closer to Russia than NATO, but Turkey even accuses the U.S. government
of being involved in the recent military coup-attempt against its president.
Even some of NATO’s oldest and formerly most supportive members are
beginning to resist continued U.S. leadership and hegemony. With the
collapse of the Soviet Union U.S. imperialism pushed an aggressive
expansion of NATO, which placed NATO arms one thousand miles to the east
closer to Russia’s borders, putting St. Petersburg, for instance, within
range of NATO artillery. In response to a recent U.S.-led NATO military
exercise in Poland and the Baltic states, Germany’s foreign minister,
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, warned U.S. officials that the action amounted
to “saber-rattling and warmongering.”
The unraveling of these post-WWII international institutions certainly
reflects an increasingly more difficult global environment for U.S.
capitalism. But even more immediately frightening for U.S. capitalism is
the massive political damage inflicted by the 2016 presidential election
on its dual political parties. For the ruling elite of U.S. capitalism
there has been no more essential and valuable political institution than
its stable two party monopoly. This has been true for more than 150
years, ever since the smashing of the slavocracy in America’s great
Civil War. But even prior to the election popular confidence in both the
Democratic and Republican parties were at all time historical lows. The
election itself has now resulted in a further dramatic deterioration.
The political damage inflicted by the 2016 campaign
On one hand, the Republican Party is captured by an extreme right wing,
rogue billionaire, an open racist, who brags about his successful sexual
assaults on women, banning individuals from entering the country on the
basis of their religious affiliation, and among other things, promises
to launch a global-wide trade war. The ruling class itself sees Trump as
a loose cannon, dangerous and unstable—the kind of president that in
this threatening new era for U.S. capitalism, demonstrates every
potential for making things dramatically worse. For the first time in
history every major newspaper in the nation opposed his candidacy. Yet
despite the overwhelming opposition within its ranks the U.S. capitalist
class was unable to stop his election!
On the other hand, decade after decade of “lesser evil” politics made it
easy to shift its entire two party monopoly further and further to the
right. But this also has a downside for the U.S. capitalist class. The
Democratic wing of their dual party system became less and less able to
even demagogically present itself as a populist party posing to defend
middle-class/working class Americans from an ever more austerity-driven
capitalism. The term “populism” even becomes a pejorative among liberal
commentators and Democratic Party functionaries. The Hillary Clinton
candidacy was the perfect reflection of this right-wing evolution. The
“super” capitalist Trump successfully claims to speak for an
increasingly desperate blue-collar working class as the “change”
candidate—“Make America Great Again.” Hillary spoke for the status
quo—with her campaign theme of portraying America as “Still Great.”
The unchecked and un-checkable rightward evolution of the Democratic
Party is reflected not only in the candidate but its entire electoral
strategy. Especially after Trump’s capture of the Republican Party the
Democrats embraced a strategy built around a superficial turn to
“diversity,” while promoting their pro-business policies in an attempt
to win votes in traditional Republican bases in the white suburbs. New
York’s Wall Street Senator Charles Schumer, who more and more emerges as
the chief political strategist and spokesperson for the Democrats,
predicted: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western
Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in
Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
In addition, no other potential Democratic Party candidate was more
closely tied to the disastrous results of “lesser-evil” politics than
Hillary Clinton. She was an enthusiastic supporter of the Clinton
administration’s 1994 $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new
federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time
offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants
and the expansion of police forces. In her full throated support of the
legislation, as Michelle Alexander documented in, “Why Hillary Clinton
Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast
Black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,”
she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called
‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they
ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.” By the time
Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate
of incarceration in the world.
Hillary supported the Clinton administration welfare-reform legislation,
which under the slogan of “ending welfare as we know it,” shredded the
federal safety net for poor families. The legislation also barred
undocumented immigrants from licensed professions, and initially slashed
overall public welfare funding by $54 billion. As late as 2008 she
continued to defend the legislation as a success. She also supported
bank deregulation during the Clinton administration and the anti-gay
Defense of Marriage Act.
Her most famous political act was her vote as Senator for the Iraq war.
As the disastrous results of that war became more and more obvious she
attempted to take her distance from it by claiming she was deceived by
faulty intelligence. However, this did not prevent her continued
attraction for an aggressive policy of military-imposed regime change.
She enthusiastically supported the Libya military adventure, with again
disastrous results. She then became the most vocal proponent for a “no
fly zone” in Syria, which like the “no fly zone” originally declared in
Iraq, would have been nothing less than a conscious precursor to yet
another regime-change war.
The 2016 election and the Trump presidency pose a dangerous threat to
two opposite and opposing constituencies, on one side the U.S.
capitalist class, on the other side America’s middle-class/working
class. For the U.S. capitalist class the immediate question becomes how
best to spin the election to insulate their two-party system from the
disastrous results and at the same time restore some level of confidence
in the Democratic and Republican Parties? Their solution was the
launching of a massive propaganda campaign absolving their two-party
monopoly from any responsibility in the bizarre unfolding of the
election and the dangerous Trump victory. The Trump success, they wish
to assure us, is not because of any fundamental failings on the part of
the Democratic and Republican Parties or U.S. capitalism or even Trump’s
inept electoral opponent Hillary Clinton. Rather we are to believe the
Trump victory is the product of a diabolical, foreign conspiracy
engineered by the evil Russians. The prominent, liberal, New York Times
columnist, Paul Krugman, even seriously proclaims, in a word play on the
1962 conspiratorial and reactionary film The Manchurian Candidate, that
Trump is the “Siberian” candidate.
During the campaign the organization WikiLeaks released a series of
documents damaging to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National
Committee. Among these were speeches Clinton gave to Wall Street
fund-raising groups, the text of which she repeatedly refused to make
public. In one she tried to assure her Wall Street backers not to worry
about statements she might have to make on the campaign trail because as
a politician you: “need both a public and a private position.” In
another speech to wealthy campaign donors she wrote off working class
voters attracted to Trump’s promise of change as “…the basket of
deplorables. They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic,
Islamophobic—you name it.”
DNC documents also released by WikiLeaks revealed that the committee
staff through scheduling, secret smears and other maneuvers had been
engaged in a conspiracy to sabotage the Sanders campaign in favor of
Clinton. As a result, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign her
position as chair of the DNC. A few weeks later her replacement, Donna
Brazile, also had to resign when other WikiLeaks documents showed she
had secretly provided debate questions to the Clinton campaign prior to
at least some of the Clinton-Sanders primary debates. CNN also had no
choice but to fire Brazile from her lucrative and valuable position as a
Democratic political commentator as her stunningly unethical activities
were revealed.
No one challenges the authenticity and accuracy of these damning
WikiLeaks documents. But the increasingly frantic campaign charging
Russia with hijacking the U.S. election, wants to pretend their
authenticity is irrelevant. Pay no attention they say to Clinton’s
secret speeches, to the actions of Wasserman, Brazile and others. Rather
focus on the claim that WikiLeaks obtained these documents from Russian
hackers. That said, WikiLeaks denies their source was Russia. U.S.
intelligence officials back up the claim of a Russian source “with high
confidence.” WikiLeaks past record for veracity is excellent, for the
U.S. intelligence community, not so much. It wasn’t that long ago that
U.S. intelligence guaranteed the existence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq as a “slam dunk.” In reality the dispute over the
WikiLeaks source is an irrelevant “red herring.” The undisputed
authenticity and accuracy of the WikiLeaks documents, and what they
reveal are not irrelevant.
The most cynical aspect of this entire campaign is the portrayal of the
U.S. as an innocent victim of unprecedented foreign interference in the
election. A December 23, 2016 article in the Washington Post by Lindsey
A. O’Rourke, documents that since 1947 the U.S. has tried to change
other nation’s governments 72 times. Sixty-six times by covert actions
six by overt means. The article reports that 26 of the covert actions
succeeded, apparently all six of the overt actions were successful.
Often when U.S. intelligence services meddle in foreign elections it
doesn’t hack—it murders. In 1963 the CIA organized a coup against their
supposed South Vietnam ally, President Ngo Dinh Diem, in which he was
killed. In 1973 the CIA organized a coup against the democratically
elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, in which he was killed. In
truth no government has been involved in more actions to subvert foreign
governments and their elections than the United States.
The Obama legacy
To restore some level of confidence, especially for the Democratic
Party, we have also witnessed the launching of an over-the-top campaign
to burnish Obama’s lackluster, eight-year, presidential legacy. Typical
of the tone is New York Time’s columnist David Leonhardt’s claim that:
“Obama leaves office as the most successful Democrat since Franklin
Roosevelt.”
On the index of income inequality the Obama eight years saw essentially
no reduction in the enormous gap between the one percent and the rest of
society. In the eight years of the Obama administration ninety-five
percent of households have not seen their incomes regain 2007 levels.
Income inequality in the United States continued to far exceed anything
seen in other advanced nations. In new data just released by the World
Economic Forum the United States ranked 23rd out of 30 advanced
economies in wage and non-wage compensation, and it ranked last in
social protection. And lately things have hardly gone in the right
direction. On January 27th the government reported that the economy grew
by only 1.6 percent in 2016 a significant reduction from around 2.5
percent in both 2015 and 2014. Many of the white working-class, who
voted for Trump, voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, some no doubt despite
holding racist views. Obama ran as the “change” candidate who they hoped
would provide some relief in their desperate economic and social
situation. They got eight more years of the same.
But the most telling part of Obama’s legacy is how much his
administration has prepared the ground for Trump’s reactionary, extreme
right-wing program. Trump in his promise of mass deportations, inherited
a well-oiled deportation infrastructure from the Obama administration,
which has deported 2.5 million people—more than every single U.S.
president of the 20th century combined. In the spring of 2014 the
National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the nation’s largest Latino advocacy
organization, which had previously supported Obama, could no longer
remain silent. NCLR President Janet Murguía delivered a speech
lambasting Obama’s deportation policy: “We consider him the deportation
president, or the deporter-in-chief.”
In 2007 before taking office Obama assured the public that he would
oversee the nation’s extensive surveillance program without “undermining
our Constitution and our freedom.” Once in office, however, the Obama
White House failed to meaningfully scale back surveillance practices
established by Obama’s predecessor, including the unlawful bulk
collection of Americans’ domestic phone call records. Michael Hayden,
the former director of the U.S. National Security Agency, praised Obama
explaining that surveillance programs have “expanded” during Barack
Obama’s time in office and said the spy agency has more powers now than
when he was in command under President Bush. Expansion of dangerous
surveillance rules continued right up to the end of the Obama
administration. With mere days left before President-elect Trump took
office, Obama finalized new rules to make it easier for the nation’s
intelligence agencies to share unfiltered information about innocent people.
The Trump administration certainly plans to build on the already
expanded surveillance program he inherited from Obama. Trump also
promises to dramatically increase bombing in the Middle East and expand
it to target family members of those he concludes are terrorists. Obama
did not begin the drone-killing program but he did greatly expand it and
greatly loosened its rules. Under Obama’s approach many aspects of his
targeted killing policy are, to say the least, on dubious legal footing,
which have set hugely dangerous precedents.
Obama administration officials have variously argued that targeted
killing with drones is a state secret or a so-called political question
that isn’t properly “justiciable,” (subject to trial in a court of law),
even if the target is an American citizen. The Obama administration
asked Americans to believe not only that it was empowered to kill an
American in secret; but that after the fact courts should refrain from
judging whether such killings violated the right to life of the target.
Thanks to Obama’s actions, Donald Trump is inaugurated into an office
that presumes the authority to secretly order the extrajudicial killings
of American citizens.
Trump will also be inaugurated into an office that construes its mandate
to kill with drones broadly, encompassing strikes in countries with
which America is not at war and targeting groups and individuals that
had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks. In effect, Obama
has construed the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force so broadly
that it’s now hard to discern any meaningful limit.
Many Democratic officials are expressing shock over Trump’s nomination
of the completely unqualified Betsy DeVos as U.S. Secretary of
Education. DeVos, a Republican billionaire from Michigan who labeled the
U.S. public education system a “dead end,” is an advocate for
privatizing public education by requiring the use of public funds to pay
for private school tuition. But a January 21, 2017 article in the
Washington Post by its education reporter, Valerie Strauss, titled,
“Democrats reject her, but they helped pave the road to education
nominee DeVos,”[4] shows that Democrats can’t just blame Republicans for
her ascension. “It was actually Democrats” Strauss writes, “…who helped
pave the road for DeVos to take the helm of the Education Department.
Democrats have in recent years sounded—and acted—a lot like Republicans
in advancing corporate education reform, which seeks to operate public
schools as if they were businesses, not civic institutions. By embracing
many of the tenets of corporate reform—including the notion of ‘school
choice’ and the targeting of teachers and their unions as being blind to
the needs of children—they helped make DeVos’s education views, once
seen as extreme, seem less so.”
There is probably no position in which Trump invests more emotional
capital than his promise to constrict and constrain what he calls the
“lying press.” James Risen, an investigative reporter for the New York
Times in an December 30, 2016 news analysis article for the Times
titled, “If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama,” writes: “If
Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail
for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a
journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such
expansive power: Barack Obama.”
Risen continues: “Over the past eight years, the administration has
prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared
with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has
repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era
red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials
who talked to journalists.”
Risen concludes, “When Mr. Obama was elected in 2008, press freedom
groups had high expectations for the former constitutional law
professor…But today many of those same groups say Mr. Obama’s record of
going after both journalists and their sources has set a dangerous
precedent that Mr. Trump can easily exploit. ‘Obama has laid all the
groundwork Trump needs for an unprecedented crackdown on the press,’
said Trevor Timm, executive director of the nonprofit Freedom of the
Press Foundation.”
Trumpism
What is the political nature of Trumpism? Does it constitute a
burgeoning fascist movement? The truly massive and uncontested
anti-Trump demonstrations in dozens of cities throughout the nation, the
day following his inauguration gives the answer to that. Where were
Trump’s fascist “brownshirts?” The best Trumpism could do, was a few
dozen “Hell’s Angels”-type motorcycle gangs that did not even make
themselves visible.
However, this does not mean that Trump is just another right-wing
Republican in the mold of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or George W.
Bush. The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States is
a deeply dangerous development that dramatically escalates the threat to
America’s middle-class/working class. It is a decisive shift,
representing the growing failure of center-right and center-left parties
not only here but in all the advanced capitalist countries. What makes
it particularly dangerous for the U.S. middle-class/working class is the
complete absence here of any mass working class party that could present
a fighting alternative.
Trump will quickly launch an aggressive attack on the civil liberties
and civil rights of Blacks, Latinos, the women’s movement, unions,
immigrants (especially Muslims), the press, and anyone who dares to
criticize him. As Barry Sheppard already highlighted in his excellent
article “The Rise of Trumpism,”[6] he will first of all be the “law and
order” candidate. He will greatly increase police powers including the
further militarization of the police. There will be no rollback of the
War on Drugs or mass incarceration, and there will be no more federal
oversight (already weak) of police violence. Already within days of his
inauguration Trump is proposing a large-scale federal policing
intervention into Chicago with its large Black, Latino, and Muslim
populations. Finally he intends to use the expanded powers of a
militarized police to suppress the anti-Trump demonstrations which he
now knows are coming and which he takes as a personal affront.
He will increase the militarization of the border with Mexico and
greatly step up the massive deportations begun under Obama. He will
prevent, under one formula or another, most Muslims from immigrating to
the U.S. including millions of desperate refugees from Washington’s wars
against Arab countries.
Trump will move quickly on his promise of big tax cuts for the rich and
large corporations. Regulations will be relaxed for the banks and other
financial concerns and environmental regulations will be abolished or
made inconsequential.
He will dismantle Obamacare, which was already wholly inadequate,
providing the worst healthcare system of any advanced industrial
country. Despite promises to the contrary it will be replaced with
something covering even less people with even less healthcare.
He will put in place a massively expanded program of voter suppression.
He does not intend to have his “legacy” besmirched by defeats in midterm
elections in two years, or his own reelection in four years. That is
what is behind his seemingly ridiculous charge of massive voter fraud in
the last election and his call for launching a voter fraud investigation.
Fighting Trumpism
How can we successfully fight Trumpism, which clearly does not represent
the views or interests of an overwhelming majority of America’s
middle-class/working class? In her penetrating article, “Why Hillary
Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote, [7] Michelle Alexander attempts
a balanced evaluation of Senator Bernie Sanders and his call for a
political revolution. Alexander concludes: “The biggest problem with
Bernie, in the end, is that he’s running as a Democrat…I hold little
hope that a political revolution will occur within the Democratic Party
without a sustained outside movement forcing truly transformational
change. I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new
party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.”
Alexander expresses considerable political wisdom here. It would be
easier to build a new party, as difficult as that certainly would be,
than to save the Democratic Party. All the evidence, especially the
recent history, demonstrates there is no “saved” Democratic Party that
can successfully fight Trump. It is the dual parties of capitalism, the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party together, that have created
the conditions that gave rise to Trump. It’s not irrelevant that Trump,
for his entire life, has supported and participated in both these parties.
This of course does not mean that the fight against Trump should wait on
the creation of a new alternative political party. The fight against
Trump has already gotten off to a pretty good start—the really massive
anti-Trump demonstrations and the Women’s Marches in the streets that
took place immediately following his inauguration. And this is certainly
only the beginning. Trump sells himself as a “man of action,” and to
bolster that image and his ego, he will quickly attack Black youth,
immigration, the woman’s movement, Muslims, the labor movement, Latinos,
Roe V. Wade, the environmental movement, and anyone who challenges him.
His administration will be one that constantly provokes and energizes
more people into opposition.
The mass demonstrations following Trump’s inauguration were not
initiated by the Democratic Party, rather they were initiated
independently by a small group of women activists. Trump was obviously
stunned by their size and breath, but you can also be sure the
Democratic Party leadership was more than a little apprehensive about
its independent nature, remaining largely outside of their control. They
recall the anti-Vietnam War movement, which despite their best efforts
remained independent, successfully resisting being incorporated into the
Democratic Party electoral machine.
This is the essential political debate which will take place as the
anti-Trump movement evolves—the fight to keep it independent of the
Democratic Party. New York Senator Charles Schumer, who is replacing a
discredited Hillary Clinton as the principal spokesperson for the
Democratic Party, is already pushing to channel the movement into
Democratic electoral politics. It’s well to remember Schumer’s history
and background. In his long political career he came to be known as “The
Senator from Wall Street.”
He raises millions and millions of dollars from the finance industry,
both for himself and for other Democrats. In return, he voted to repeal
the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and voted to bail out Wall Street in
2008. In between, he slashed fees paid by banks to the Securities and
Exchange Commission to pay for regulatory enforcement, and eviscerated
congressional efforts to crack down on rating agencies.
Schumer voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, and sponsored its
predecessor, the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. During a Senate
hearing, Schumer explained that “it’s easy to sit back in the armchair
and say that torture can never be used. But when you’re in the foxhole,
it’s a very different deal.” Schumer also defended the New York Police
Department’s surveillance of Muslims across the region, which Trump has
cited as a national model.
Returning to Michelle Alexander’s perceptive quote, she describes what
she believes would be necessary to accomplish a political revolution, “a
sustained outside movement forcing truly transformational change.” That
is what the anti-Trump movement which began with the Women’s March on
January 21, 2017 should aspire to become. A placard I saw being carried
at the Washington March was prophetic, “FIGHT TRUMP—THE DEMS WON’T.”
—January 2017
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
91Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)91
Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
February 12, 2017 in Economy, Trump / U.S. Government.
Related posts
dec-2016-immigrants
Trump and the future: commentary from Britain
feb-2017-wom-chi-mark
How to fight Trump? Defeating Democratic Party strategy is key
nov-2016-la-trump-demo
Protests score Trump’s hate-mongering agenda
Post navigation
← Mexico won’t pay for the Wall!
Women in Ireland call March 8 strike →
Get Involved!
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month February 2017 (10) January 2017 (13)
December 2016 (12) November 2016 (19) October 2016 (12) September
2016 (10) August 2016 (10) July 2016 (14) June 2016 (14) May 2016
(9) April 2016 (12) March 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016
(11) December 2015 (11) November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September
2015 (10) August 2015 (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015
(10) April 2015 (12) March 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015
(10) December 2014 (12) November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September
2014 (6) August 2014 (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014
(11) April 2014 (10) March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014
(11) December 2013 (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17)
September 2013 (13) August 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15)
May 2013 (14) April 2013 (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10)
January 2013 (17) December 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012
(19) September 2012 (2) August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012
(3) May 2012 (19) April 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19)
January 2012 (17) December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011
(14) September 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011
(19) May 2011 (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011
(16) January 2011 (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October
2010 (6) September 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010
(2) May 2010 (9) April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3)
January 2010 (9) December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009
(16) September 2009 (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2)
May 2009 (7) April 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9)
January 2009 (10) December 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008
(16) September 2008 (14) August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008
(3) May 2008 (2) April 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11)
January 2008 (11) December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1)
June 2007 (1) April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3)
December 2006 (11) November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September
2006 (15) August 2006 (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006
(14) April 2006 (6) March 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006
(2) December 2005 (9) November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September
2005 (12) August 2005 (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005
(16) April 2005 (12) March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005
(15) December 2004 (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19)
September 2002 (22) August 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21)
April 2002 (21) February 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001
(17) October 2001 (24) September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001
(18) October 2000 (17) September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000
(16) June 2000 (26) May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28)
February 2000 (18) January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November
1999 (26) October 1999 (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July
1999 (38) June 1999 (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999
(26) February 1999 (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
Search
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook
View SocialistActUS’s profile on Twitter
View SocialistActionCT’s profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events
Category Cloud
Actions & Protest Africa Anti-War Arts & Culture Black Liberation Canada
Caribbean Civil Liberties Cuba East Asia Economy Education & Schools
Elections Environment Europe Immigration Indigenous Rights International
Labor Latin America Latino Civil Liberties Marxist Theory & History
Middle East National Oppression Police & FBI Prisons South Asia
Uncategorized Vote Socialist Action Women's Liberation
View Calendar
Blog at WordPress.com.