NYT is a paper with a mission, much like a religious organization. It is more interested in what its readers believe than what they need to know. NYT appears to believe its fundamental mission consists of rallying the public around themes it deems capable of unifying the nation. Unity trumps truth.

The problem is that, contrary to its conviction, an imposed unity is aggravating friction rather than reducing it. Even more seriously, such a policy implies actively excluding from view all alternative theses. When alternative accounts exist, people in a democracy can think and decide for themselves.

Opposing or even ignoring alternative and possibly truthful accounts – as NYT recently did with former NYT reporter Seymour Hersh’s telling of the Nord Stream sabotage story – easily becomes  the equivalent of totalitarian propaganda.

Over the past seven years, NYT has consistently demonstrated its commitment to themes that for many were already obviously untrue at the time and were proven unequivocally to be untrue later. Russiagate is the prime example. NYT went whole hog on that. But there is also the Havana Syndrome, which, as we have regularly documented, NYT desperately wanted the public to believe was a devious Russian assault on American diplomats. That lasted for more than five years, until the day that the CIA decided that, whatever it was, it was not an attack by a foreign power.

Much that is similar can be said about NYT’s reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but just like the Iraqi affair and the Havana Syndrome, it may take years for the truth to come out.

The latest propaganda campaign can be called the delegitimization of Robert F Kennedy Jr as a Democratic presidential candidate. In this case NYT  is working in the service of the establishment of the Democratic Party and its incumbent president, Joe Biden. It is nevertheless building on a precedent: its coverage of candidate Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries of 2016 and 2020, when the newspaper made sure that its readers perceived Bernie as an extremist.

New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg unwittingly recently offered a brilliant demonstration of that same trend. Towards the end of an with the tendentious title; “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Coalition of the Distrustful,” Goldberg offers this shamelessly rhetorical question and her own equally rhetorical but deliriously delusional answer to it.

Commenting on the idea expressed by her “old boss” David Talbot that Kennedy’s intention to expose the deep state’s implication in the assassination of his uncle, John F Kennedy, and his father, Robert Kennedy, might be a salutary act, she summons her best rhetorical skills to dismiss it: “Who wouldn’t want to reach into the past,” she asks, “and undo the errors and accidents that have brought us to this miserable moment?”

Then she offers her equally rhetorical answer: “As politics, it’s a harmful fantasy; movements that promise to restore a halcyon era of national unity always are.”

°ŐŽÇ»ćČčČâ’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Harmful fantasy:

The name the New York Times gives to ideas that compete with or contradict any of the series of codified harmful fantasies that it promotes, apparently on the grounds that it is safer for people to believe in its own simplistic fantasies than grapple with the messy truth of history.

Contextual note

Human personalities tend to be complex. Robert Kennedy Jr has a hundred biographical reasons to be thought of as a complex personality. That complexity in itself should be deemed a news item. But in politics, complexity is systematically frowned upon. In today’s overgrown democracies politicians see nuance as an unwelcome intruder.

But journalism, the vaunted fourth estate, can and should take an interest in nuance and it often has done so in the past. Once upon a time, a “newspaper of record” saw nuanced truth as at least equally “fit to print” as unnuanced propaganda. That glorious epoch of journalism has clearly passed. Propaganda has replaced news. It stands as the key to security and social harmony, the glue that holds society together.

Goldberg clearly qualifies a concern for nuance and an interest in the historical truth as harmful fantasies. She claims, with no evidence, that the supposed intention of those interested in nuance is neither a concern for justice or national healing, but nostalgia for a bygone era.

Goldberg’s argument boils down to the idea that the mistakes and crimes of the past simply do not merit our attention because elucidating them will not restore lost harmony. It may even create further dissonance. In one sense she’s right. Learning about systemic injustice and criminality will disturb the current harmony, which is based on deliberating and systematically erasing awareness of the contradictions that define the reigning system.

Goldberg’s thoughts are totally consistent with the NYT’s editorial policy, which clearly aims at creating the belief that an absence of an interest in both history and justice are the required conditions for guaranteeing the tranquility of the existing order.

Historical note

Over the past century the editorial agenda of the NYT has radically evolved away from its stated ideal. Instead of covering the literal meaning of news – reporting all the “new facts” –  the paper has taken upon itself the idea of reporting the latest policies of the state, and more particularly the federal government. Its role is quite simply to articulate the reasons that justify those policies. This is particularly true when the state is in the hands of an establishment Democrat. To support that mission, it has increasingly relied on, not just the state, but the “deep state,” the intelligence community (IC).

The old democratic idea of the fourth estate reflected the belief that the press was the public’s channel for receiving the facts on the ground taking place in the world or in a specific locality. Until recently newspapers clearly distinguished between factual reporting – the news – and editorials, which might reflect a diversity of points of view and partisan takes on the news.  It was true even then that news articles were never exempt from observers’ bias, but the standard everyone recognized stated that the news was built around the idea of “reporting” or recounting actions that have been observed by perceptive reporters. A news article about a murder or a military campaign might contain some reflection on possible motives, but journalists understood that their job was to describe as accurately as possible what appeared to be factual.

The moment when a change in the entire orientation of NYT’s commitment to journalistic truth occurred in 2002 and 2003, during the buildup to George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq. The newspaper’s commitment to propaganda that many observers recognized as such at the time was so flagrant that in 2005 she was forced to resign. Ironically, that was also the year Chris Hedges, who had opposed the paper’s position supporting the war but had been consistently silenced, was forced to resign.

Miller’s stories based on lies culled from the deep state misled the public. But the supposed authority of the newspaper of record allowed  Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld to appear on television citing Miller’s story as proof of the Bush administration’s criminal policies.

Could the editorial board have learned a lesson from this episode? Yes, of course. Has it learned that lesson? Columnists such as Michelle Goldberg and Paul (“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a crank.”) reveal that nothing has changed. Or rather, everything has changed
 since the time when news, rather than propaganda, defined what was fit to print.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51łÔčÏ Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post The Latest Fantasy Promoted by The New York Times appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

To address the problem with any hope of achieving success, humanity has two choices. The first would be to remove inequality itself as the founding principle of the dominant economic system. That would mean inventing a form of capitalism that downgraded personal and institutional greed as the essential factor of motivation. The second would be simply to change the economic system and its political infrastructure. 

General Flynn: Under God or Under the Influence?

READ MORE

Because the second solution is deemed radical, most people have eliminated it from consideration. On the pretext of responding to the pandemic, the first solution has been awkwardly formulated as an ideal to aim for by members of the economic elite who have given it the “The Great Reset.” Given its lack of real impact, cynics might conclude that it serves primarily to comfort the idea of those members of the privileged elite that, as individuals, they possess a moral conscience. As a class, they pretty clearly have none.

The pundits will explain that changing the economic system is out of the question, citing history as proof. It has already been tried, in Soviet Russia. It catastrophically failed. Capitalism won. The idea that there may ways of inventing an alternative to a failed and a now visibly failing system has been excluded from polite thought by the economic and political elite. 

They have crafted and imposed on successive generations a deterministic view of history, dutifully transmitted through our dominant educational and media culture. It is the same deterministic view of history that the late David Graeber and David Wengrow have critiqued in their recently published book, “The Dawn of Everything.” The standard view of history implies a vision of progress from the age of hunter-gatherers to present times, leading to the current state of affairs summed up by US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in her immortal : “We’re capitalists and that’s just the way it is.”

The question of wealth inequality has been given a boost this week by Elon Musk, who is no fan of Democrats, but who does share Pelosi’s existential belief. In the context of debate on the reconciliation bill that US President Joe Biden calls “Build Back Better” (a term by the same elite that have proposed The Great Reset), some legislators — notably Ron Wyden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee — have been pushing for the inclusion of a tax targeting the super-wealthy. In recent years, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both candidates in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, put the issue in the public spotlight.

Polls and surveys show that the idea of taxing the wealthy, at least in proportions similar to the middle class, is a very popular idea across the US. And although Republicans are formally committed to a historical ideology that adulates the wealthy and will defend at all costs their essential privileges in the belief that that is the key to a dynamic economy, Democrats have begun to understand that there may be an electoral advantage in at least affirming publicly you want to tax the wealthy.

Markets Insider up the psychological position the Democrats find themselves in today during the ongoing negotiations to tax the wealthy that will figure in the reconciliation bill. “The White House hasn’t quite leaned into an outright wealth tax, even though polling consistently shows it’s popular with most voters, who want higher taxes on the wealthy to offset infrastructure spending,” the website reports.

°ŐŽÇ»ćČčČâ’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Most voters:

Those whose numbers represent a largely insignificant statistic in modern democracies because they cannot back up their convictions with the cash that serves to finance the campaigns of the people they will eventually have to vote for because there will never be given credible alternatives

Contextual Note

The entire debate took on new significance when Sanders — who , “We must demand that the extremely wealthy pay their fair share. Period” — drew the ire of his majesty of Twitter’s Elon Musk. The CEO of Tesla responded with this insulting : “I keep forgetting you’re still alive.”

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51łÔčÏ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Musk has never tried to hide his hyperreal narcissism, but in this case, he makes it plain for everyone to see. His fans applauded and piled on with tweets such as this : “Bernie is the kind of guy that shows up to a potluck with no dish but Tupperware containers to take food home.”

But apart from his devoted fans, the public has no reason to care about what or whom Musk remembers or forgets. After decades of coddling by the media, Musk apparently believes his thought processes sum up the essence of humanity’s current concerns. After all, he recently became the world’s wealthiest human being. According to traditional US wisdom, if he’s hyper-wealthy, he must be hyper-smart.

Historical Note

Quite logically, in Elon Musk’s eyes, questioning the idea of excessive wealth is equivalent to attacking Musk himself. Seeing himself as humanity’s greatest benefactor, he continued his assault on Bernie Sanders with a mindless repeating the stale clichĂ© of Mitt Romney Republicans back in 2012: “Bernie is a taker, not a maker.”

Musk sums up with blinding clarity the oligarchic state not just of American democracy, but of the culture that for the moment keeps it firmly on the same path. But that very path must be understood in terms of its own historical trend. It has become increasingly risky. 

Comparing the much mediatized and constantly expanding wealth of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or even the officially retired Bill Gates (who should thus be excluded from the caste of “makers”) with the miserable wages of the majority of human beings who actually do make things for the pleasure and prosperity of the wealthy, the general public is undergoing a prolonged traumatic experience. The sophisticated wealthy of the international super-elite who gather in Davos every year appear to be aware of the danger. That is why they are calling for the Great Reset. The super-wealthy class in the US appears, in contrast, to wallow in their indifference to the public’s trauma.

How has the American elite managed to create a situation that encourages such indifference and ignores the risks? The answer is simple: an effective ideology. The United States finds itself today in a situation similar to that of the Soviet Union half a century ago. Soviet communism was sufficiently resourced and organized to maintain a fragile equilibrium for the general population thanks to their inculcated belief in an ideological belief system designed to protect the ruling elite. 

The Soviet system finally collapsed at the end of the 1980s due to the increasingly evident gap between the supposed truisms contained in the ideology and the physical and psychological reality of the global economy. In the early 1990s, thanks to US initiatives, Russia’s ideology based on the belief that communism defined the interest and identity of the people was brutally replaced by the ideological precept repeated mechanically by Pelosi that we are all capitalists.

Americans who admire Musk do so because of their own inculcated belief in the idea that society consists of makers and takers. This implies that the takers (aka “most voters”) depend on the makers, just as the average Russian depended on Soviet leadership. But, in the Soviet Union 40 years ago, the lived reality increasingly told a different story.

Something similar is happening in the US today. Awareness of the gap is growing. It contributed to Donald Trump’s election in 2016. The professional ideologues in the economy, the media, education and politics are doing all they can to counter it, to keep the takers vs. makers ideology alive. That includes all Republicans, of course, but also Pelosi and more recently Senator Joe Manchin, who argued that a wealth tax would be “overly punitive toward business and corporate leaders,” Business Insider .

The conflict between “most voters” and the ideologues will undoubtedly continue to play in favor of the ideologues, thanks to a system that makes voters (takers) less equal than donors (makers). But, as in Soviet Russia, a tipping point may be somewhere in the offing.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51łÔčÏ.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Elon Musk vs. Bernie Sanders appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Seyer-Ochi exposed what the rest of the population failed to notice, even though the event had been broadcast to the nation. Her acuity alone penetrated through the veneer to identify the shameful act perpetrated by a well-known politician. The foul deed occurred on Capitol Hill a mere two weeks after a rabid mob, whipped into a frenzy by Donald Trump, notoriously occupied the Capitol and threatened lawmakers’ lives to protest a stolen election.

What was the shameless deception her probing eyes had unveiled? Who was the guilty party? And how did this person get away with such a vile act?

Unchanged or Unchained: What’s in Store for the JCPOA?

READ MORE

The answer to those questions surprised most of the readers of her op-ed. Seyer-Ochi exposed a dangerous adept of the now well-known sin of privilege, not just of white but also male privilege. The guilty party was none other than Senator Bernie Sanders. The former presidential primary candidate, according to the teacher’s reading, had set up the scene to dupe the masses, gullible enough to fall for his brazen attempt to cultivate an image of the folksy elder of the traditional American family. 

By covering his hands with the archaic symbol of hand-knitted woolen mittens in a homage to traditional craftsmanship (if not craftswomanship or perhaps craftspersonship), Sanders’ attire signified his identification with the dominant white, wealthy elite that has consistently stoked endemic racism for the past 400 years. Sanders was also guilty of dressing too casually and failing to respect the solemnity of the historical enthronement of the first female vice-president of black and South Asian descent.

Yahoo editor David Knowles this significant teaching moment in these terms: “Seyer-Ochi’s objection was to the “privilege, white privilege, male privilege and class privilege.” The teacher “addressed the topic with her students, who she said were also upset by what they saw as the implicit message being delivered by Sanders’s choice of outerwear.”

°ŐŽÇ»ćČčČâ’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Outerware:

The visible clothing people wear not to keep warm or protect them from the elements but to advertise which class or caste they belong to

Contextual Note

The new woke culture in the US, specializes in the art of canceling people who fail to live up to its real or quite as often imaginary standards. It relies on the ability of its practitioners to detect “implicit messages.” These woke academics believe (utterly mistakenly) that they are applying the insights of continental philosophers like Michel Foucault, or what is called “.” But woke theorists owe more to the great American puritanical tradition that, since the 17th century, has tasked its adepts with the office of exposing the moral failings of other members of the community.

One of the reasons Foucault and other French thinkers would never have approved of this application of theory is that the practice of »ćĂ©±ôČčłÙŸ±ŽÇČÔ (denunciation to the authorities) during the Nazi occupation of France in the Second World War is to this day vilified as one of the most heinous acts people can engage in. It was a behavior encouraged by the Nazi-controlled Vichy regime that encouraged good Frenchmen to denounce Jews and members of the RĂ©sistance.

But beyond that, Foucault simply saw no interest in condemning individuals or ostracizing specific behaviors. His intellectual art consisted of teasing out relationships between different sets of ideas and cultural practices in particular societies and relating them to the institutions that constitute their power structure. Foucault described what amount to symbiotic relationships. To some extent, he admired their coherence, even when they manifested themselves in ways that were clearly at odds with his own personal values. Foucault, the radical, gay, atheistic questioner of Western institutions, for example, declared his deep sympathy for Ruhollah Khomeini’s revolution in Iran.

Historical Note

What is now commonly referred to as or even “” is a recent trend of academic behavior. It traditionally pledges allegiance to French philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, but it unconsciously applies an approach opposite to theirs. Instead of teasing out subtle relationships, in the quest to understand how complex elements coexist and support one another within a society at a certain moment of its history, the wokeist methodology focuses on unearthing anecdotal evidence of isolated acts serving to expose what they deem to be a suspect power relationship. That is precisely what Ingrid Seyer-Ochi has done to impress her students and get an op-ed published in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Having absorbed the lessons of structuralism (Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude LĂ©vy-Strauss), Foucault explored what he called “L’archĂ©ologie du savoir” (the archeology of knowledge), an approach that seeks to discover how cultures are constructed and the play of forces that hold them together. It seeks out phenomena that explain historical continuity and discontinuity. In the process, it may reveal sources of injustice, but its aim is to layer knowledge and understanding rather than exercise moral judgment. 

This divergence of approach tells us something about how intellectual tools produced by one culture — in this case, French intellectuals — may be distorted by a different culture (US academics) that borrows them for a totally different purpose. In recent decades, woke analysts and activists have neglected the job of understanding complexity and increasingly focused on rooting out acts that they can demonize as instances of “.” Woke critics take particular pleasure in playing the role of inquisitors whose powers of observation and careful detective work allow them to accuse an individual or a group of insensitively using for illicit purposes cultural attributes considered the inalienable property of another group of people. One typical outcome of this vital research is the engaging and deeply instructive practice of critiquing celebrities’ choice of Halloween costumes.

If they had been infected by the same obsession with the injustice of cultural appropriation, the French theorists of the 20th century might have ended up accusing their woke followers in the English-speaking academic world precisely of that sin. They might equally have pointed out that the very idea of cultural appropriation can only exist in societies in which the notion of private property as the foundation of social life is considered axiomatic. Anthropologists and cultural historians have long understood that the elevation of private property to the status of a fundamental human right is a modern Western invention. It belongs to a specific time and place in human history.

This phenomenon helps to illustrate a fundamental difference between the cultures of Europe and North America. When Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung to New York in 1909 to introduce psychoanalysis to Americans, Freud remarked to Jung, “They don’t realize we’re bringing them the plague.” 

But it was Freud who failed to realize that the Americans, always ready to exploit someone else’s asset, found a highly productive use for Freud’s plague. Instead of undermining what Freud deemed the uncultivated superficiality of US culture, the Viennese doctor’s intellectual heritage led to the consolidation and accelerated development of the consumer society. Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, played an important role in that operation. Instead of showing concern about the destructive impulses of their id, Americans ended up employing Freud’s insights productively, by harnessing the dark energy of the unconscious for profit. Freud’s plague produced both Madison Avenue and the atomic bomb.

Freud saw his mission as one of unveiling the disturbing truth about how our minds work: how the unconscious betrays our conscious intentions. Appropriated by Americans, Freud’s doctrines were used not to illuminate people’s understanding of how their minds work, but to orientate them toward types of behavior useful to the propertied elite and the barons of industry. The age of propaganda was already underway. Propaganda became the foundation of the hyperreality in which people have now accepted to be enclosed.

Postscript: A practitioner of theory should have noticed a likely correlation between Seyer-Ochi’s attack on Bernie Sanders and the establishment Democrats’ permanent campaign to brand the senator a male supremacist because he dared to run against Hillary Clinton in 2016.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51łÔčÏ.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post A Woke Reading of a Politician’s Mittens appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Without IC, the Democratic Party could not have entertained the nation for four years with the Russiagate show. One of the unintended consequences of the media’s obsession with alleged Russian interference in US elections has been to highlight both the central role of the IC brain and its fatal weaknesses. 

A Double Twist in Russiagate

READ MORE

The New York Times and The Washington Post have relied on the IC to provide the substance of unending streams of stories revealing the functions of the brain. MSNBC and CNN have rivaled against each other to recruit and then display the insight of former intelligence chiefs, presenting them as paragons of objectivity.

The NY Times provided an example of this last week in an by Robert Draper concerning the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified report on Russiagate. A close reading of Draper’s analysis reveals some of the subtleties both of how the IC brain works and how The Times has become the voice of that brain.

Here is an example in which Draper quotes veteran national intelligence office, Christopher Bort: “The intelligence provided to the N.I.E.’s authors indicated that in the lead-up to 2020, Russia worked in support of the Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders as well. But Bort explained to his colleagues … that this reflected not a genuine preference for Sanders but rather an effort ‘to weaken that party and ultimately help the current U.S. president.’â¶Ä

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Genuine:

In the language of intelligence agencies, the official interpretation of facts that should be retained to the exclusion of the facts themselves

Contextual Note

Draper and Bort want Americans to understand that Vladimir Putin’s Russia is committed to one thing alone: maintaining their man, Donald Trump, as the US president. If Russia speaks kindly of Senator Bernie Sanders, it can only be a tactic to comfort Trump’s reelection. It certainly cannot be the hope that, if elected, Sanders might be less rigid than past presidents — including both Trump and Barack Obama — in terms of his Middle East policy, for example. Elections are not about concrete issues. They are only about personalities and loyalties.

As the brain of the system, the IC has the role of defining acceptable and unacceptable codes of behavior for itself and for the population as a whole. It can define, for example, what is “genuine.” Unlike moral codes, the behavioral code it defines is a single ethical criterion called “interest.” This is particularly evident in the realm of foreign policy, where actions can always be justified as the defense of “American Ÿ±ČÔłÙ±đ°ù±đČőłÙČő.”

The system’s most obvious feature is the nature of what fuels it: money. But the IC doesn’t understand money as an allocated budget measured in dollars and cents. Instead, money exists in a far more abstract sense, taking it beyond any form of traditional reckoning. The IC uses unlimited amounts of unaccounted-for means of payment to conduct operations designed precisely to optimize the national and global environment in ways that will boost the production of unaccounted for streams of profit.

The profit will ultimately accrue to the commercial beneficiaries of the system. These are the famous “American interests,” though they are never specifically named. The system functions as a community structure but with no dimension of personal kinship. In its opaqueness and focus on money, it resembles the mafia, but devoid of the cumbersome sense of honor that can sometimes get in the way of straight business.

The IC has traditionally steered clear of electoral politics. Because the US is technically a democracy, the IC must play the role of the influencer rather than a manipulator. The task of manipulation has been confined to the media, essentially privately-owned tentacular structures whose role is to orient and stabilize an ideology and worldview shared by the population. Influenced by the brain, the media define what is normal (good and reassuring), what is tolerable (not so good but non-threatening) and what is extreme (to be banished or shamed). Such a system is designed to ensure the stability that will permit the perpetuation of profits for the entire corporate class, of which the media is a part.

In normal times, the IC prefers to remain invisible. But Trump’s election victory in 2016 forced the Democratic Party and its sympathizers in the media to bring it into the spotlight. Together, they provided the American public with four years of Russiagate entertainment. They also revealed how close the ties are between the Democratic Party and the brain of the oligarchic system.

Historical Note

In a Foreign Affairs article published on August 5 bearing the title, “There Is No Russian Plot Against America” and the subtitle, “The Kremlin’s Electoral Interference Is All Madness and No Method,” seasoned analyst Anna Arutunyan examines the history of Russia’s purported interference in the 2016 US presidential election. In contrast with Christopher Bort, who, among other things, claimed to know that Russia did not have “a genuine preference for Sanders,” the author warns that “ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent.”

Arutunyan notes that the intelligence community has unearthed plenty of evidence of “activities of Russian actors with ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 election.” But the IC possesses “comparatively little information about the real impact of these measures on the election’s outcome—and still less about Moscow’s precise objectives.” In other words, the brain is doing only half its job. It fails to see the connection between what it sees as causes and the reality of the effects produced.

The author concludes that the campaign to subvert the 2016 election was essentially “a series of uncoordinated and often opportunistic responses to a paranoid belief that Russia is under attack from the United States and must do everything it can to defend itself.”

Concerning the motives, Arutunyan describes a chaotic environment encouraging the “activities of this or that activist, or special forces group, or businessmen and entrepreneurs—these people are always active in fields like this. It’s what they do.” And what do they want? “They are trying to earn money or political capital that way,” she writes. 

As for the 2020 election, she speculates: “If there is another Russian operation, expect contrarian messages targeting both candidates’ campaigns and highlighting generally divisive issues such as the United States’ response to the coronavirus pandemic. The messaging will not be coherent, and it will have no further purpose than to provoke arguments.”

Could this be Vladimir Putin’s ultimate stroke of genius? The Russian president understands how to exploit, with the least amount of effort, the fact that Americans love nothing more than to argue, insult, cancel, shame and, by any other means possible, put in their place fellow Americans who don’t agree with them. It requires far less effort than dialogue or debate. Addressing the issues implies listening, revising one’s judgments, seeking nuanced understanding of complexity, and finally agreeing on collaborative actions adapted to the nature of the challenge.

If the 2020 election continues to focus on nothing more than the increasingly visible inadequacies of the two candidates — Donald Trump and Joe Biden — their failure to understand the historical context in which they are living and their lack of vision for the future, Putin’s strategy will have paid off. 

The big question facing electors today seems to be: Which of the two men is the most cognitively impaired? Which has the worst history of corruption? Neither appears to want to focus on the concrete measures required to address the issues that Americans are struggling with today, whether it’s race, the economy or health care. 

On the other hand, there will be plenty of room for arguments. But the satisfaction of a good dispute may not appease those about to be evicted or deprived both of the prospect of finding a job and, in the midst of a pandemic, the guarantee of health care that would accompany it.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51łÔčÏ.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post The Brain Malfunction Affecting the US and Its Respectable Media appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Through two ultimately disappointing presidential primary campaigns, Senator Bernie Sanders failed to reform the party’s political culture. Now, according to , the kind of “change we can believe in” that former President Barack Obama but failed to deliver and the “” that Sanders led until he decided to give up and follow the crowd may be emerging, thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mexico’s President Shockingly Calls The NY Times Neoliberal

READ MORE

The Times wants its readers to believe that the party that calls itself Democratic may at last discover the meaning of democracy as per Abraham Lincoln: “[A] government of the people, by the people and for the people.” The NYT’s correspondent, Alexander Burns, titles his article, “Big Democratic Ideas That Make Everything Better.” Thanks to the pandemic, he tells us, the party’s elite are awakening to the principle that the needs and desires of the people should sometimes have priority over the requirements of their donors in determining their approach to governance.

To make his case, Burns wastes no time misrepresenting recent history. After stressing the importance of disruptive reform, he reminds his readers that it probably won’t happen. “As Mr. Biden surely knows from his years as vice president — most of all the battle over the Affordable Care Act — voters who demand new policies from the government in one moment may not patiently endure the disruptions and unintended consequences that tend to accompany structural change, particularly in times of economic hardship,” he writes.

Burns makes two serious mistakes here. He denies his own basic premise, that a crisis permits extraordinary actions unthinkable in normal times. And he misrepresents the history of the Affordable Care Act and other reforms proposed in the recent past.

A simple modification of vocabulary could improve the accuracy of his historical account. The following emended version of Burns’ text highlights in italic the crucial change of vocabulary: “As Mr. Biden surely knows from his years as vice president
 [when] voters demand new policies from the government in one moment 
 [donors] may not patiently endure the disruptions and unintended consequences that tend to accompany structural change.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Endure:

For the powerless, to support something painful and opposed to their interest with the hope of survival in spite of everything, simply because they have no choice. For the powerful, to appear to acknowledge something that will be painful for them while using all of their clout to make sure it never happens.

Contextual Note

In the first three words of the preamble to the US Constitution, “We the people” claim collective authorship. These same people are the ones Lincoln believed to be in charge of a government that existed for the purpose of responding to their needs. Lincoln even succeeded in expanding the notion of “people” to include an entire race that had formerly been branded as chattel rather than human subjects. He didn’t, however, expand it broadly enough to include the people who had for millennia inhabited the territory now called the United States. Native Americans only became in 1924 and earned the right to vote across the full expanse of the US in 1962.

There’s another sense in which Lincoln’s memorable description of US democracy has never been true. The political system evolved very quickly into a class-based structure of government that produced a new kind of non-aristocratic elite. The emergence of a two-party system consolidated that trend. Each party constituted its elite. And though they agreed to differ on their specific political credo, together the parties ended up sharing an identity as two factions of a ruling class with remarkably similar cultural values. 

Broadly speaking, the Republicans built a propaganda system based on the idea of economic freedom. The Democrats built theirs on respect for the “common man,” sometimes referred to as the working class, or rather the “middle class” that works for a salary. This was to distinguish it from the industrial working class, the Marxist proletariat that populated the socialist and communist movements in Europe.

In the past two election cycles, Sanders’ populist assault on the Democratic Party’s elite forced an awareness of a very real ideological split within the party and a possible revolt against its elite. The split occurred around the attitude to take toward “the people.” The first is to persuade the nation’s financial and economic elite to be kinder to ordinary people than they would tend to be naturally. The second is to clamor for giving ordinary citizens a voice inside the government. The second is very difficult to accomplish, for the simple reason that most of the places are already taken.

The NYT’s article reads like a propaganda piece striving to reconcile both sides, especially when it insists that “there are already strong signs of consensus within Mr. Biden’s party, as once-cautious electoral and legislative tacticians shed their opposition to huge price tags and disruptive change amid a crisis that has melted traditional obstacles to government action.” This is intended to seduce the Bernie supporters.

One significant problem remains: the lack of any concrete examples of commitment to “disruptive change.” As we have seen, Burns takes the position that, even if the commitment existed, history tells us it will never happen because its cost will not be “endured.”

Historical Note

Throughout US history, the idea of the identity of the “we” in “We the people” has been up for debate. Abraham Lincoln himself symbolically embodied the ambiguity. Born in a log cabin, he is remembered as a “common man.” But as a practicing lawyer, his class identity switched to that of the ruling elite, at ease in the corridors of public decision-making and, thanks to his talent for oratory, assured of a prosperous career.

Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidential election in November, was not born in a log cabin and yet claims to hail from the working class. His father was a wealthy oil businessman who nevertheless encountered some hard times. Like Lincoln, Biden became a lawyer. In the late 20th century, even more so than in Lincoln’s time, being a lawyer meant belonging to the elite. It was also the most obvious launching pad for a political career.

Alexander Burns insists on the impact today’s COVID-19 pandemic will have on the orientation of the Democratic Party. He quotes Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, a centrist Democrat: “There is a recognition that this event is more transformative than 2008, more transformative than 9/11, more transformative than the fall of the Berlin Wall.” This leads to a vague promise by Jake Sullivan, a close policy adviser of Biden: “We are going to have to do more, push further, be more creative coming out of this once-in-a-century pandemic”

One paragraph in Burns’ article sums up the ambiguity of Biden’s quest: “Mr. Biden also said he wanted to ‘insist that big corporations, which we’ve bailed out twice in 12 years, set up and take responsibility for their workers and their communities.’â¶Ä Burns calls this “a striking flash of populist sentiment that Mr. Biden has not yet translated fully into policy.” Others would be tempted to call this a flash in the pan or simply hollow, demagogic rhetoric, precisely because it is unlikely to be “translated fully into policy” any time soon. And even if it were adopted as policy, it would probably never become law.

What Burns is signaling to the American public is that The New York Times intends to have its readers “endure” six months of vapid cheerleading for a seriously problematic Democratic candidate whose greatest hope is that the electorate will see President Donald Trump as even more problematic. But if Biden fails to find a serious angle to mark the difference with standard wishy-washy Democratic policy, he will face another problem. While Trump is also deeply problematic, for the average American he appears as a paragon of the entertainment elite. Biden, in contrast, is not just problematic, but also an uninspiring and boring member of the Washington elite.

For most people, these are times of anguish, not boredom. If the Democrats succeed in making boredom appear as a remedy for the anguish produced by the coronavirus pandemic, Biden will have his chances. But his odds will drastically improve if, instead of counting on The Times to do his propaganda, he could find a way of convincing “the people” that he will dare to be disruptive in his policies.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post What Will Americans Endure in This Presidential Race? appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Can America’s Progressive Movement Thrive Without Bernie Sanders?

READ MORE

Daniel Marans, writing on the HuffPost, reveals the story: “The New York State Board of Elections removed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from the primary election ballot on Monday. He adds that senior adviser Jeff Weaver: “°ŐŽÇ»ćČčČâ’s decision by the State of New York Board of Elections is an outrage, a blow to American democracy, and must be overturned by the DNC.”

Democratic co-chair Douglas Kellner made the following statement: “What the Sanders campaign wanted is essentially a beauty contest that, given the situation with the public health emergency, seems to be unnecessary and, indeed, frivolous.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Democracy:

A form of government intended to be of the people, by the people and for the people, but which tends, under historical pressure, to evolve into a government of the parties, by the parties and for wealthy donors.

Contextual Note

This year’s Democratic primary campaign, a partial remake of the 2016 fiasco that led to Donald Trump’s election as president, has offered its share of high drama until it was ultimately interrupted and overtaken by the coronavirus pandemic. It turned into a contest between a confirmed insurgent trouble-maker — Senator Sanders — and the party establishment. The latter — after unsuccessfully resorting to pushing a former Republican multibillionaire to prevent the rabble from taking over the party — ended up somewhat grudgingly aligning behind the former vice president, Joe Biden. Despite Biden taking what many considered to be an insurmountable lead in early March, because of the historical importance of the issues raised, the drama should have continued up until the summer convention and beyond.

The panic around the pandemic that set in just as Biden was confirming his lead ended up upsetting everything, including the date and even the physical reality of the Democratic National Convention. In the meantime, the battle between the two sides made it clear that the party itself was split into two camps: the defenders of the status quo, now represented by Biden, and the modernizers, who had lined up behind Sanders and, to some extent, Senator Elizabeth Warren. More significantly, this turned out to be a battle of generations, with Biden securing a clear majority of the over-45s and Sanders an even clearer majority of the under-45s.

Another notable difference emerged. On the status quo side, the driving force and the central motivation boiled down to individuals seeking some form of stability and security in their lives after more than three years of hurricane Donald. On the modernizer side, the motivation coalesced around the idea of collective purpose. One side reflected the interests of isolated individuals; the other side, the sense of there being a movement, a force in history.

Interestingly, both sides understood and exploited the motivations of those they were appealing to. The dispersed individuals wanted any “reasonable” solution that allowed them to feel they could keep what they already had and enjoy it in peace. The movement, with less to protect and much to fear, sought to redefine the elements that controlled their lives and that appeared increasingly irrational. 

Had the debate been able to play out with little external interference, it could have clarified many serious issues that now face a nation whose internal politics, under President Trump, have become seriously confused and whose geopolitical status is clearly in a state of hegemonic decline. But interference has become the norm in democratic politics across the globe and even more specifically in Democratic politics in the US.

Even after suspending his campaign and endorsing Biden, Senator Sanders had proposed to keep the debate alive. He said he would keep his name on the ballot in the pending primaries as a way of clarifying the positions on issues the Democratic Party needed to deal with. These include health care and debt, two issues whose importance has never been more obvious, thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic and the official response to it.

In endorsing the removal of Sanders from the ballot in the New York primary, the Democratic Party has once again demonstrated that the one thing it won’t stand for is debate. After all, debate allows the people’s voices to be heard in their full plurality. When representative democracy seeks to represent the people rather than the economic interests that keep the economy going, the result, from the party’s point of view, is cacophony. Silence is preferable.

Historical Note

In 1787, the young North American nation drafted its constitution in the name of “We the people.” Nearly 50 years later, the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville published the famous book called “Democracy in America” in 1835. Ever since that epoch of history, Americans and the rest of the world have supposed that the US exists as a culture deeply committed to the principle of democracy. But throughout its history, though the idea continues in people’s minds, the practice of democracy has been consistently challenged by those who have sought and obtained political power. Perhaps never more than today.

Representative democracy has always suffered from the risk of powerful interests skewing the information the electorate receives and using their power to govern for purposes not endorsed by the people. Instead of representing the interests of the majority who have elected public officials, other forms of interest can intervene to modify the loyalties of those officials. Both parties in the US have understood that and both have found ways of dodging the responsibility of representing their electorate’s interests. 

One major contributing factor is a particular form of economic fatalism. It consists of the population’s acceptance of a spurious background ideology designed to create a sense of uncritical trust in those who have been “successful” (an ambiguous concept that needs further elaboration but takes form in the “”). It was because of his image as an emblem of success that, despite his visibly vulgar circus barker style of oratory, Donald Trump managed to earn the votes of enough Americans to offer him the keys to the White House in 2016. They trusted the flashy billionaire to find a way of trickling down his success to the entire nation.

Ever since the Thatcher-Reagan revolution of the 1980s, Western democracies have become so used to the fact that political decisions will always be made on the exclusive basis of “economic interests” that most people end up trusting a nebulous corporate and financial infrastructure — which includes banks and global industry, and wealthy “influencers” — to provide the guidelines for legislation and governance. As a consequence, a majority of Americans, at least in recent elections, have tended to trust those who were close to the economic decision-makers, to the point of neglecting and ignoring their own interests. That is why, to defend the status quo, the Democrats in particular realize it’s important to prevent debate from taking place. Republicans have always appealed more to emotion than thought.

Both parties in the US feel uncomfortable with democracy and democratic debate, but for different reasons. The Republicans don’t like open democracy because they are aware of the demographics that work for them and the population of the nation is simply too diverse. The party is committed to a culture built around the traditional image of pragmatic and “responsible” rule by wealthy white men with a sense of running a business. Minorities don’t spontaneously share a respect for that myth. Therefore, finding ways to prevent minorities from voting has become one of the major skills promoted by the Republican Party.

The Democrats dislike democracy because of their newfound allergy to debate. Both parties have demonstrated and refined their ability to make sure the right types of people vote and the wrong types don’t vote. The Republicans specialize in massive voter suppression focused mainly on minorities. The Democrats have chosen a different way: stifling any serious reflection on policy, which can only lead to indiscipline. When one’s purpose in life is simply to regain power, indiscipline becomes intolerable.

And so the Democrats will be hard at work between now and the Democratic convention in August to ensure that people stay focused on the man they will be expected to vote for and not on any distracting, debatable ideas that some undisciplined people seem obsessed with.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Democrats Erase Bernie Sanders’ Name in New York appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Politics is terrible and murky even among people whose policies are reasonably aligned. The two progressive leaders in American politics, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sanders, are guided by different core principles. While Sanders stands for equality, Warren stands for liberty. The two flagbearers of the failed to see eye to eye and coalesce their campaign the way centrist candidates did. That proved to be a costly mistake, resulting in both of them aborting their campaigns prematurely.

Unabashedly declaring himself a democratic socialist, Sanders was able to shake the country with a rousing campaign for a five-year period during his two presidential bids. However, at 78, Sanders is in the twilight of his political career and is unlikely to seek reelection for his Senate seat in 2024, let alone a third presidential run. Does this spell the end of the progressive movement Sanders has been instrumental in creating?

An American Utopia?

Despite his infectious passion that has engaged the younger generation of Americans, Sanders has not succeeded in challenging the nation to look past itself and look out for others. Even in the midst of one of the worst pandemics in human history, politicians have been unable to rise above politics, govern the country and lead the people safely and responsibly. The richest country on this planet is suffering the worst casualties, exposing its broken health-care system, inadequate testing infrastructure and a lack of supply of protective gear for health workers and the general public alike.

Not a day goes by without the nation’s megalomaniac leader, Donald Trump, doing something that is scandalous, parochial and irresponsible. His Republican entourage meekly kowtows to the president’s whims, leaving the impotent Democratic politicians flailing miserably, crying foul and accomplishing precious little.

Had Sanders, or any progressive leader, been at the helm during this disaster, science and facts would have dictated policies at the national level. The money that individuals receive would have been protected from banks and other private debt collectors having first dibs at it. The egregious abuse of power by an administration allowing the richest in the country to by way of a loophole in the stimulus plan would have been inconceivable. Assuaging human suffering, caring for the lives and health of American citizens would have taken precedence over the well-being of corporations and restarting the economy.

Sanders’ vision for America is egalitarian, not . In his own words, every American “is entitled to health care as a right, is entitled to a decent paying job as a right, is entitled to a dignified retirement as a right, is entitled to a clean environment as a right, and is entitled to all of the education they need to accomplish their life goals,” capturing the essence of what he has been passionately fighting for.

Stranglehold of Capitalism

Strangely, millions of Americans who would benefit from an egalitarian society prefer to stay in the lower echelons of the economic caste system imposed on them by a capitalistic society. The select few who sit on top of the pyramid and wield the power have little incentive to change the system when the status quo is skewed so much in their favor. It is no surprise that Sanders calls his progressive movement a political revolution, for nothing sort of a revolution can bring about a change to this well-entrenched economic caste system foisted by capitalism.

How the political revolution created by Sanders survives and thrives after him depends on the filling the void he leaves behind. Until they truly become a force to reckon with within the Democratic establishment, they have to learn to win small concessions from the evolutionary policies of centrist Democrats without becoming obstructionists. by Sanders, it is promising to see many millennials aspire for political office. It would be critical for their aspirations to become reality as in the case of House Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib and Ro Khanna, all ardent believers in a progressive agenda.

As Congresswoman Omar correctly observes, “the progressive movement has never been about one individual. It is about issues.” Shifting the mindset of an entire nation to a progressive agenda, either through a radical revolution, as Sanders advocates, or specifically targeting the excesses of the capitalist system, as Warren believes, will take years, if not decades. We would need a new generation of leaders in positions of political power who are unafraid to place the larger social good ahead of personal gains and the interests of a wealthy few. They must be prepared and ready for capitalism to choke any incremental gains they make toward a more progressive society. Most importantly, they must be savvy enough to deal with it.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Can America’s Progressive Movement Thrive Without Bernie Sanders? appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

But there is a second reason. Some have called it a case of buyer’s remorse among many Democrats, who are more than ever aware of Biden’s weaknesses as a candidate. Speculation abounds concerning the possible replacement of Biden by another more forceful and more rhetorically — if not mentally — stable candidate.

Bernie Leaves a Path Behind Him

READ MORE

Apart from Biden’s uninspiring personality, a suspicion of corruption through nepotism, and his glaring incapacity to generate enthusiasm around his candidacy, the primary race revealed that the former vice president is unpopular with an important segment of the Democratic base: the younger generations who massively came out to support Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders has promised to campaign for Biden, as he did for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But that doesn’t mean his voters will automatically follow his lead.

Last week, eight progressive groups sent a message to Biden in an attempt to pressure the candidate and the party into adopting positions orientated not toward the past but the future. Here is the gist of their : “Messaging around a ‘return to normalcy’ does not and has not earned the support and trust of voters from our generation. For so many young people, going back to the way things were ‘before Trump‘ isn’t a motivating enough reason to cast a ballot in November.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Return:

The core idea frequently promoted by politicians who promise that, if elected, they will have the power to recreate an imaginary past, which they cast as far rosier than it actually was. The strategy tends to be effective in times of cultural decline.

Contextual Note

The Democrats have insisted endlessly since the beginning of the 2020 primary campaign that this election is exclusively about one thing: beating Trump. Biden is now their presumptive candidate, selected because he was considered the most “electable” of the 20-odd candidates who were vying for the job. Mission accomplished! But they have begun to worry about Biden’s capacity to stand up to Trump. Many see him as a weak candidate, a poor performer, prone to gaffes and moments of incoherence. 

If the Democrats are sincere about their pitch that the only thing that counts is defeating Trump, they don’t seem to have noticed the golden opportunity that Sanders’ departure from the race has offered them. There is now a transparently simple way for Biden to expand his catchment area for votes toward independents and Republicans, recapture the youth vote for Democrats and promote a theme that inspires enthusiasm. 

All Biden has to do to guarantee a Democratic Party victory in November is to come out in support of single-payer health care. Already popular with a majority, single-payer health care has become even more credible in the midst of the pandemic. According to a by Morning Consult and Politico, “55% of voters support Medicare for All.” Even more significant is the fact that from “February to March, net support for single-payer health care jumped from 11 points to 20 points.” In just a few weeks, the coronavirus pandemic has pushed the gap of approval of Medicare for All upwards by nine points, and 52% of independents are now in favor of it. 

In all probability, this is only the beginning of a trend, since the pandemic is expected to be present and developing for many months to come. A significant number of the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs since the start of the crisis will be in need of medical help, and they will have the occasion to think about what their sudden lack of coverage means. Aware of this growing problem, Sanders, in his role as senator, has already begun pushing an to deploy a version of Medicare for All for the duration of the pandemic. 

If Biden were to become the champion of a permanent version of Medicare for All, he would not only gain the support of the progressives and the young who risk deserting him the way they did Clinton in 2016. He would also attract many of the independents and Republicans who are uncomfortable with Trump and whose concern about health care is very real.

Biden’s stated position today, as he expressed it in a with Lawrence O’Donnell, is that universal health care is too expensive. But that could change. In the chess game that is just beginning, the former vice president has already timidly pushed a pawn forward one square. He has proposed “lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60.” In his “Plan to Safely Reopen America” as an op-ed in The New York Times on Easter Sunday, Biden makes no mention of how he intends to respond to the health care needs of the people. 

Unsurprisingly Sanders supporters perceived Biden’s proposal to lower the age of eligibility by five years as an insult to their intelligence, an act of elitist arrogance, the equivalent of Marie-Antoinette proposing that the poor eat “brioche” when there is no bread (“let them eat cake”). This is especially true now that voters — and not just “Bernie bros” — can perceive the economic and psychological cost of the lack of a uniform system of healthcare coverage for the entire population. Biden’s bean-counting cost argument (“How will you pay for it?”) has lost its initial credibility.

But Biden’s apparent failure to appreciate the scope of the crisis may be part of a clever game he’s playing, a comparable to Muhammad Ali’s “rope-a-dope.” In the days following Sanders‘ announcement on April 8, making the grand gesture toward the progressives would have sounded cynical as well as provoking accusations of . But by showing a small dose of clearly insufficient flexibility, as he has just done, Biden may be in a position to build the dramatic suspense leading up to an imminent and convincing Damascene conversion narrative.

Here’s how it could work. Biden immediately instills the idea that he is spending the next three or four weeks in deliberations with Sanders and others. It could even be his . Then, at the opportune moment, he emerges to announce his newfound commitment to a bold new vision of Medicare for All, accompanied by copious thanks to Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren for having opened his eyes. 

In the midst of a tragic pandemic, Biden thus plays out his comedy in three acts that draws everyone’s attention. At first opposed, then ready to take a first step, finally, in Act III he triumphantly announces his intention to seize the historic moment. Biden thus appears as the humble but resolute visionary leader who will usher America into the new reality of a post-pandemic world.

This strategy would instantly have maximum impact on progressive voters in the runup to the August convention for the Democratic Party. They could no longer remain neutral. It would curtail the predictable strife that is bound to follow if Biden maintains his current cautious position. And it would ensure a massively favorable turnout from the younger voters in November. It might even have an effect on their parents as well.

It looks like a no-brainer that spectacularly broadens Biden’s base. But it is also extremely unlikely. So, why might it not happen? There are two possible reasons. The first is the debt that Biden and the Democratic Party owe to the pharmaceutical and health care industry. These highly-profitable businesses would not only stop funding Democratic campaigns; they would go all out to reelect Trump. As everyone should know by now, in politics money always has the last word.

The second is team pride. The Democratic Party establishment has been functioning as a disciplined team whose opponent has never been Trump or the Republicans. No, the real enemy is Sanders and his mutineers, who represent a contrary and unacceptable philosophy. Accepting Medicare for All would be a concession not just to the rebels’ policies but to their worldview. That would be an implicit invitation to a complete overhaul of the party. Far too radical
 not because of its policies, but because of its disrespect for the existing power structure.

It should be noted that most of the corporate media are part of the Democratic team. They too may be fearful of losing vast swaths of revenue currently provided by the corporations most likely to be adversely affected by single-payer health care. How would they compensate for the lost revenue? A victory for Biden will already cause some damage to their balance sheet, since the personality of President Trump and his various abuses of power have been excellent for both their news and entertainment value. Everything Trump does has proved to be great for ratings. But if, in addition to the loss of Trump as a headliner, the media lose their revenue from health care-related industries, it would be an unmitigated disaster.

Historical Note

Health care has been the bane of Democratic presidents for the past 75 years. When Harry Truman universal health care in 1945, PBS reports, “the once-powerful American Medical Association (AMA) capitalized on the nation’s paranoia over the threat of Communism and 
 attacked the bill as ‘socialized medicine.’ Even more outrageously, the AMA derided the Truman administration as ‘followers of the Moscow party line’” (a line of reasoning most recently revived by Democrats criticizing Trump, Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and others).

As the wife of Bill Clinton, the newly elected president in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton tried valiantly to launch an health care plan and was roundly sent home from school by Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Barack Obama, who was president from 2009 to 2017, had a chance to push a single-payer system through by appealing directly to a population favorable to the idea. Yet he preferred arranging things in the background in dialogue with the powerful industries who were inciting Republicans to raise the cry of “socialized medicine,” even when it turned out that Obama’s plan was based exclusively on privatized medicine. The result was the inadequate hybrid system that the US has today, founded on the idea of employer health insurance.

The principal argument during the Democratic primary season that preceded the sudden catastrophe of the coronavirus turned around an idea repeated ad nauseum by the “moderate” candidates, including Biden: People don’t want to give up their employer-sponsored health insurance. That view had already been discredited at a Town Hall organized by Fox News, where to host Bret Baer’s surprise, the the idea of shifting from private to public coverage. With the fiasco of unemployment provoked by the pandemic, the case for public health care is becoming clearer by the day. 

Biden has a chance to mark history and position himself as a new Franklin D. Roosevelt, the author of the New Deal. The Democratic Party has an opportunity to prove it actually is about electability and beating Trump. The winning formula is there for the taking. Las Vegas hasn’t yet published the odds on whether that will happen. On the other hand, if it does happen, the odds on Biden winning would be overwhelming.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Biden’s Sure Path to Victory appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Can the Democratic Establishment Afford to Shun Sanders Again?

READ MORE

On April 8, Sanders cited this simple for ending his campaign: “The path toward victory is virtually impossible.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Virtually impossible:

Possible

Contextual Note

Some stylists and linguistic commentators have pointed out that the word “virtually” can be used as a facile and misleading rhetorical device. The linguist William Lutz, author of the book “Doublespeak,” calls it a “weasel word,” which is his term for words that convey a meaning beyond and sometimes in contradiction with the meaning people usually attribute to it. Words become weaselly when they lead to conclusions or ideas that deviate from the perceived logic of the situation.

Here is what Lutz has to say about the word: “One of the most powerful weasel words is ‘virtually,’ a word so innocent that most people don’t pay any attention to it when it is used in an advertising claim.” Lutz tells us, “‘Virtually’ means not in fact.” The same is true when the word is used by a newscaster, an entertainer or a politician, even a politician with as strong a reputation for sincerity as Sanders.

So, was Sanders being disingenuous when he evoked a “path toward victory” that is virtually impossible? Before dealing with how he treats the idea of “virtually,” we should notice that “path” is a metaphor. Most people take his statement to mean that victory is impossible. Given what we know about political procedures, even in this strangest of all election years, a Sanders victory is very literally impossible. But the path to victory is only “virtually” impossible, meaning it is real. The path he has created exists even if the victory of being the nominee is now excluded.

Sanders provides some clarity about the path he has embarked on. “While Vice President Biden will be the nominee, we must continue working to assemble as many delegates as possible at the Democratic Convention, where we will be able to exert significant influence over the party platform, and other functions.” US President Donald Trump was the first to notice Sanders’ clever ambiguity. It even seemed to worry him as he called it “weird.” Here is how Trump Sanders’ decision: “He didn’t really drop out 
 What about his delegates? I mean he said he’s going to keep his delegates, which is sort of interesting 
 and he would like to get more. Now, is he dropping out or not? That’s not dropping out. 
 That’s a weird deal going on there.”

“Weird” obviously means out of the normal, unexpected. But for Trump, it also implies “suspect” or “devious.” Given Trump’s plan to focus on thrashing Biden in November, he appears to believe it’s also problematic since the Sanders variable makes it more difficult for the president to assess the nature of his adversary in preparation for his battle plan. At the same time, Trump cleverly highlights for the public’s appreciation the conflict and confusion within the Democratic Party. As he has always been accustomed to do, he seizes on this as an opportunity to exacerbate the party’s internal divisions.

As the author of “The Art of the Deal,” he then goes on to say: “I think he’s doing it to negotiate. That’s a hard thing to do.” President Trump is right. And this is especially true of a Democratic Party that has consistently demonstrated in recent decades its inability to reconcile or even accommodate its own contradictions. 

Historical Note

The history of the Democratic Party since President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932-45) tells the story of a party with a permanently unstable identity. For his four electoral victories, Roosevelt relied on a majority that depended on the combined support of two unlikely demographic groups: progressive-urban and working-class voters in the North and the racist, reactionary political forces that had dominated the South since the end of the Civil War in 1865. White Southerners could never forgive the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln for emancipating the slaves.

In contrast with the Democrats’ unnatural coalition, the Republicans based their appeal on their commitment to two more easily reconcilable themes. The first was the promotion of business and the economic prosperity of the nation. It enthroned entrepreneurs, industrialists and self-made men as heroes. The second was a vague cultural idea of independence and freedom from unneeded restrictions.

In terms of ideology, the rivalry of Democrats and Republicans thrived on a simple contrast between those who accepted and encouraged a positive role for government (Democrats) and those who entertained the ideal of a civilization with minimal government or indeed no government at all other than that provided by local initiatives. Many Republicans sought to frame this as a competition between capitalism (freedom) and socialism (despotism), creating the myth that capitalism was incompatible with despotism and socialism was incompatible with civil liberties. 

Republicans could thus accuse Roosevelt of being a socialist because of the centralized reforms he put in place to reduce the misery caused by the Depression. Republicans interpreted this as a violation of the play of free markets, a sin against capitalism and a first step toward communist despotism. In reality, everything Roosevelt did was designed to save the capitalist economy from total implosion or revolution. Nevertheless, the Republicans managed for decades to keep those misleading labels alive and continued to shame Democrats for their disloyalty to capitalism.

The Rooseveltian coalition inevitably broke down when the success of the civil rights movement in the 1960s led to the end of segregation in the South. Previous Democratic regimes, including Roosevelt’s, had protected the blatant apartheid practices of the former Confederate states as a condition for retaining the support of Southern Democrats. But the civil rights movement provided the straw that broke the Democratic donkey’s back. The South could no longer embrace its traditional Democratic identity and, as a voting bloc, migrated toward the Republicans, who were more amenable to racism. 

From that point on, the Democrats began to focus on all minorities, not just black Americans, to rebuild a solid enough coalition to win elections. That effort, combined with the continued shaming of Democrats for being “big government” socialists, led to the focus on identity politics. At the same time that Democratic politicians realized the value of courting the sophisticated practitioners of financialized capitalism of Wall Street, identity politics allowed them to polish their profile as defenders of the oppressed. Their association with finance, furthered by their activism in promoting globalization, had the twofold merit of encouraging big business as a creator of national wealth and jobs while providing a generous source of financing of Democratic electoral campaigns. Democrats could no longer be accused of being socialists.

This inevitably created a new contradiction, which Bernie Sanders, in the 2016 presidential primary campaign, was the first to exploit and turn into a movement. The Vermont senator helped wide swaths of Democratic voters perceive that the principal source of oppression wasn’t the cultural marginalization of minorities (even though racism, prejudice and injustice continue to exist and required corrective measures), but the economic system itself that was now dominated by finance and monopolistic corporations that effectively produced wealth but also growing inequality.

This posed a new problem. As the new leader of the Democrats in the 1990s, President Bill Clinton had firmly aligned the party’s identity around the performance of an economic system that abandoned Lyndon Johnson’s preferred themes of justice and equality (civil rights, “war on poverty”) in the 1960s and now focused uniquely on profit and growth. By 2017, Nancy Pelosi, today’s Democratic House majority leader, could that “we’re capitalists and that’s just the way it is.”

In his 2016 campaign, Sanders had already claimed to be a democratic socialist. Even after his defeat to Hillary Clinton for the party nomination, it became clear that he had launched a grassroots movement that was challenging the Democratic Party from within and ultimately forcing an identity crisis that is even more visible in 2020.

Since that critical moment of history, at the end of which Clinton was defeated by Donald Trump in November 2016, the Democratic Party has had to live with that contradiction. A clear majority of the younger generation has elected to focus on reforming the economy to the point of tolerating the idea of socialism. This also reflects a growing impatience with the financial capitalism that has become such a visible presence in Democratic politics. But the party establishment has demonstrated its commitment to making the “path to victory” a literally impossible goal to achieve — and not just for Sanders, but for the younger generation too.

Trump is right to see this conflict as a serious weakness of the opposing party. The party itself has once again shown itself to be helpless as well as clueless to find a way of reconciling the two visions. If their goal is to win elections, the Democrats should be dedicating themselves to creating harmony between the two sides. But there may be a good reason for their failure to do so: The two visions are strictly incompatible, just as keeping the South and supporting civil rights were incompatible commitments. Reaching a compromise today would require humbling the financial sources the party has come to depend on. But moneyed interests refuse to be humbled. They are happy with the Republicans and would instantly withdraw their support from Democrats who betrayed their interests. So, the party does what it always does: it humbles those who challenge it.

But Bernie is absolutely right, in ways that perhaps his followers don’t even understand. The path to victory for the insurgent forces in the part is for the moment impossible, but only “virtually” impossible. This is especially true at a time when the flaws and contradictions of a system skewed toward moneyed interests and indifferent to human needs have never been more visible and more damaging to ordinary people’s lives. And though the path toward a possible victory may only be trodden at the cost of political conflict and possibly even popular rebellion, Sanders knows that he has cleared much of the brush from that path.

Can Joe Biden win in November? It’s possible, given Trump’s easily exposed weaknesses. But it’s also possible that the chaos that will inevitably unfold in the coming months will produce a number of other credible scenarios, one of which includes the canceling of the presidential election itself. 

If Biden loses in November, the Democrats will once again blame Sanders and the “deplorable” Bernie Bros. They’ve already begun blaming Sanders for not losing himself in ecstatic praise of Biden as he quit the race. But whatever happens in the November election, they probably won’t be able to grow back the brush that formerly covered the path Sanders has cleared.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Bernie Leaves a Path Behind Him appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Will a Struggling Global Economy Survive the Coronavirus?

READ MORE

It will be quite some time before America and much of the rest of the world will be able to put this pandemic behind them. In the meantime, we will all be touched in some way by this disease and many are likely to lose friends and loved ones. In the short-term, most of us will have to live more modest and restricted lives. Surely, some of the touchstones of well-being will be badly disrupted. Some will learn more about hygiene. Some will experience personal vulnerability for the first time. And many will have their routines disrupted, their meager incomes stretched beyond the breaking point, and their “safety net” melt away because it never existed in the first place.

It is way too early to tell much about the progression of this pandemic in America, and much must be done each day to try to reverse its course. However, it is also a really good time for a long overdue reality check on the state of the union.

Health Care in America

The best news is that it may be the end of Trump and the Republican Party. The right-wing in America has had its day, and now the country will pay a heavy price for buying into the notion that government is the problem. Ever since Ronald Reagan dropped that poisonous pill into the political mix, it has become a mantra for way too many, even as those among them greedily seek government assistance when it seems to benefit them. Only the most crazed tell the cops to go away while the home invasion is ongoing in their own home.

Now we have a massive collective need for a strong federal response to a very dangerous pandemic, and nobody is at the helm. Not only has there been no leadership, but the ranks of those who could respond have been dangerously thinned and available federal resources mindlessly diminished. Responsible state and local governments will try to pick up the pieces, but way too many states and localities have fallen prey to the diminished governance syndrome.

Maybe in this time of need, leaders will step up. But they will have decades of negligence to overcome in the health care “system” alone. Bernie Sanders has  us almost every day that there are over 87 million human beings in the United States who are uninsured or underinsured, severely limiting their access to meaningful health care. Now, all of sudden, a lot more people are listening because it is them and disease is at their door. Others are listening because they understand that both the human and economic cost of a dysfunctional health care “system” will now be borne by all of us. Even some who have insured access to meaningful health care are likely to suffer when that access is denied amid the chaos. 

The Coronavirus Pandemic

No one knows how long this pandemic will extend, nor how damaging it will be to the nation and the world. However, one thing we can hope for in America is that this time, finally, the nation has had to confront its demons and somehow will manage to find the resources to do so.

When this is over, please don’t tell me again that we can’t afford universal access to meaningful health care, that we can’t afford to eradicate homelessness and hunger from our land, that we can’t afford to educate every child seeking to learn, and that we can’t afford to meet the now-obvious infrastructure demands of a modern nation. This time, the only thing we can’t afford to do is quickly forget what we learned and quickly forget the often-forgotten and most vulnerable among us.

After the present crisis touches so many, including many who often seem immune from crisis, the challenge will be to mobilize the caring to overwhelm the indifferent. This will require, at a minimum, getting Trump and the right-wing zealots out of the way quickly so that the hard slog can begin toward a reassertion of good governance and a rebirth of good government. This is the essential driver of the collective will to simply make things better for so many with so little.

I worry that America is so deeply divided that even a common enemy cannot unite us and that each camp will learn vastly different lessons from its own echo chamber. It is still hard for the “Make America Great Again” crowd to absorb the slowly emerging awareness in their bubble that maybe America was never so great at meeting the fundamental needs of its citizens, likely not even as good as South Korea and maybe just as bad as Italy.

What went wrong is that Americans stopped demanding good governance, rushing instead to less government. Our democracy failed when government was driven to failure. Those who invested throughout America’s history in a faith in democratic norms understood that the balanced institutional framework they created and nurtured was fragile. 

It is broken now. When this pandemic crisis passes, America will have to pick up the pieces of its failed institutional foundation and rebuild it to be much better equipped to meet the modern challenges of the nation and the globe. If we can succeed at this, maybe America can be truly great for the first time. 

*[A version of this article was cross-posted on the author’s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post America Called Its Government, But No One Answered appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

The emphasis on European solidarity came naturally to Macron. It’s the one area in which the bitterly contested president has shown some leadership skill as he has consistently sought to reinforce France’s position in Europe, both in relation to Brexit and the decline of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s dominant role on the continent.

Bernie Sanders Is Connecting With Us

READ MORE

Yet Macron surprised even his most acerbic critics. Not only did he describe the measures of his comprehensive plan to safeguard the integrity of the nation and the well-being of its people from the existential threat of an undeniably growing coronavirus pandemic, but he also insisted that the collective needs of the people and the government’s solidarity with them have absolute priority over the desires of the elite.

Macron went much further, invoking a “rupture” with the “failed” values of the free market and proclaiming that “it is now the time for a sacred union in which all together we follow the same path.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Sacred union:

An idea focused on recognizing a common purpose that brings an entire population together in the face of a threat from outside forces, a welcome and useful tool for contested political leaders who are pleased to invoke the principle as a means of neutralizing opposition to their own politics

Contextual note

Early commentators don’t seem to have noticed the extent to which everything Macron proposed in his address contrasts radically with the positions and rhetoric of US President Donald Trump. More broadly, by specifically lauding the welfare state, President Macron challenges the approach of American politicians to the pandemic, with the notable exception of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. 

Whereas Trump minimizes the threat of the coronavirus pandemic and congratulates himself on doing just enough to keep things under control — while insisting, against all evidence, that things already are under control — Macron and Sanders both invoke the gravity of a situation they deem comparable to a state of war. Sanders, who is running in the Democratic presidential primaries,: “The crisis we face from the coronavirus is on a scale of a major war, and we must act accordingly.”

Macron, in words that would not sound foreign coming from Sanders, unequivocally proclaimed that “free health care, without any restricting condition of income, path to treatment or profession and our welfare state [Ă©łÙČčłÙ-±è°ùŽÇ±čŸ±»ć±đČÔłŠ±đ] are not costs or charges but precious goods, indispensable assets when crises occur.” He added: What this pandemic reveals is that there are goods and services that must be placed outside the laws of the market. To delegate our food, our protection, our standard of living to others is madness.”

Although he has the reputation in France of a neoliberal ideologue, Macron not only echoed Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, but he clearly felt the duty to respond to Trump’s 30-day travel ban that had been announced the same day concerning flights from Europe. Macron appeared intent on profiting directly from the weakened position of Trump, whose reaction to the pandemic reveals him to be an ignorant and irresolute executive utterly lacking in empathy for real people. In his speech, Macron promised to call Trump the following day with the idea of forcing the US president to coordinate a response at the G7 level, something that Trump, clinging to his “America First” policy, would be unlikely to do.

Macron may also have noticed that Trump has used the crisis not to unify his nation, but as a means of contrasting the Democratic and Republican interpretations of the global pandemic. Trump has encouraged the idea that the Democrats have fabricated another “hoax” to follow Russiagate and the failed attempt at destitution through impeachment. President Macron drew a sharp contrast between their two approaches to the pandemic: “It isn’t division that will allow us to respond to a global crisis,” he said.

In his most spectacular divergence from President Trump, whose first instinct was to consult Wall Street barons to ensure the liquidity that could prevent a recession, Macron directly eschews the idea of trusting the markets. He announced that he doesn’t “know what the financial markets will do in the coming days,” almost as if to say that he doesn’t care. Only the people count, not the markets. Instead, Macron promised that Europe will undertake whatever is necessary to protect its economy and that France will spare no cost in meeting the needs of its population.

Here are some of the key phrases that Macron used to highlight his commitment and his train of thought: “act as one” (faire bloc), “individual and collective discipline,” “unity,” “avoid the retreat to nationalism or individualism,” “unite our forces,” “coordinate our forces,” “cooperate,” “European coordination,” “invent new solidarities,” “national mobilization of solidarity between generations,” “act as a nation” (faire nation), “this period of new solidarities” and “our generous soul that allowed us to confront the toughest trials.”

But his speech took on a more radical tone when he invited the nation to “question the model of development that our world has adopted in recent decades, which has been exposed to the light of day the flaws that this pandemic has revealed.” This could have been spoken by Thomas Piketty, the best-selling French economist specialized in the critique of a neoliberal order that has generated ever-increasing inequality. 

This feels like a signal that Macron — whose electoral strategy over the past year has taken a turn to the right by embracing anti-Muslim xenophobia — sees an opportunity to harness a different populist trend, one that emphasizes solidarity rather than exclusion. It could be an effective electoral strategy for a centrist president who appeared lost in the undefined and undefinable political center that emerged as his pathway to victory in 2017 when the establishment parties, left and right, miraculously imploded.

Many people who saw Macron as an arrogant elitist may now take a different view of a president who affirms that the pandemic has exposed the Western-dominated economy as incapable of addressing any of the increasingly intractable problems that now face humanity, which include the growing reaction against structural inequality, the climate crisis and pandemics.

As Bob Dylan once said, this time with possibly more impact than in the 1960s, “the times they are a-changin’.” At the same moment as Macron’s address, Neil Irwin, senior economics correspondent at The New York Times, about “signs — not definitive, but worrying — that something is breaking down in the workings of the financial system, even if it’s not totally clear what that is just yet.”

With Joe Biden as the frontrunner in the Democratic primaries, it may well be too late for Sanders to have an impact on the US presidency, yet his campaign seems to be producing fruit at the highest levels in France.

Historical note

Emmanuel Macron clearly understood that history could provide him with the means of saving his contested presidency. In the context of his speech seeking to motivate the nation, the idea of the sacred union sounded like a convenient rhetorical device, an appeal to the sense of solidarity of the French people. Most people may be unaware of it, but the “union sacrĂ©e” was a real historical movement of political unity launched by French President Raymond PoincarĂ© at the start of the First World War. It permitted the nation to overcome the divisions that had troubled French politics in the leadup to the conflict.

Perhaps echoing Bernie Sanders, Macron cleverly appealed to the sense of threat that people associate with war. On several occasions in his speech, he evoked, without naming them, the memory of past wars, speaking of the “toughest trials” the French had faced in former times. Unlike the recent wars and military operations in which France, along with the neoliberal order, has participated — notably in Afghanistan, Libya and in other regions of Africa — the French remember the two world wars of the 20th century as moments of history in which their culture and national integrity were threatened by evil external forces. That is a sentiment much more powerful than the artificially induced motivation for using superior technology to attack distant countries because they may be breeding individuals capable of an occasional terrorist attack inside France.

The great advantage of the coronavirus pandemic is that there is no evil party to blame, which means it cannot be the object of political controversy. No one is siding with the virus. More significantly, for the first time since the Vietnam War, Western countries feel threatened not by abstract threats that occasionally produce spectacular, very real criminal incidents that the media can make no sense of (they routinely call terrorist acts and mass shootings “senseless”), but by something directly threatening everyone’s livelihood. Our civilization has been waiting to see a sign not just that the system raised some hypersensitive and violent people’s hackles — who in “hate us for our freedoms” — but that it was deeply flawed.

Just as Sanders still appears to be the only prominent American politician with a message about how structurally flawed the system itself is — something he has been preaching for the past 30 years — Macron appears to be the first leader of a Western nation to make that simple observation.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Emmanuel Macron Rallies Around Bernie to Save France appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

For those who feel they may have heard this story before, it is the proverbial déjà vu of Russiagate all over again. In the context of the Democratic presidential primaries, the idea of a connection between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bernie Sanders could only be damaging to the senator from Vermont, who is the current Democratic frontrunner.

The Democratic Party Goes to War With Its Voters

READ MORE

The CNN reporters showed themselves a little more enterprising than The Washington Post and managed to do something The Post apparently had no time for. They caught up with three national security officials who had the inside story and clarified it for them. The officials explained that it amounted to an unfortunate misunderstanding.

The source of the original story was a certain Shelby Pierson, whom CNN identified as the US intelligence community’s top election security official. The corrected version of the story us that Pierson “appears to have overstated the intelligence community’s formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month.” One of the three officials called Pierson’s conclusion “misleading” and another said it “lacked nuance.”

It should be added that Pierson wasn’t the only one to overstate her case. The Washington Post, which decided to publish the story in the absence of any concrete evidence, took the initiative of overstating Pierson’s overstatement. CNN’s reporter explains that interviews with the three officials reveal that “the US doesn’t yet have the evidence to conclude that Russia is interfering in the election because they view Trump as a leader they can work with, because they have a preference for President Trump.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Overstate:

Explain with lurid detail something that is utterly false while giving the impression that it should be accepted because it is merely an exaggeration of the truth

Contextual Note

CNN could have simply presented this as an inaccurate story that has now been corrected and presented the known facts. But its treatment clearly aims at creating new doubts about the corrected version of the story and raising the expectation that further developments will contradict the new version and lead us back to the first conclusion. The implicit message: Stay tuned, it ain’t over. Russiagate still has legs.

This leads to an extraordinary display of ambiguous and calculatingly disingenuous journalistic doubletalk. CNN begins with a TV host who introduces the sequence before presenting the actual reporter. The host warns the audience: “We need to put a fine point on this because it is complex, it is nuanced.” For a story about Russian interference in US elections, this may be the first time in three years that CNN and similar media have admitted that there may be a need for nuance in reporting the Russiagate affair.

To make this narrative palatable and possibly defend the fact that CNN The Post’s version on February 21 in a story with the title, “Sanders told Russia is trying to help his campaign,” CNN now invokes two related concepts: complexity and nuance. The obvious purpose is to attenuate the impact of what is quite literally a malicious lie committed by two accomplices: Shelby Pierson and the media, fed by The Washington Post. At least CNN had the courage to investigate it and report on the findings.

The implicit message of The Post’s article was: Bernie Sanders is an unwitting stooge of the Russians, a useful idiot. It was only two days later that the public could learn that the US “does not yet have the evidence,” which is a curiously nuanced way of saying that, in purely factual terms, there is no evidence. It’s not as if there was suddenly evidence that no evidence existed. If the presumed evidence doesn’t exist now, it couldn’t have existed two days earlier when both The Post and CNN gave space to the allegation.

So, why did The Post, CNN and other media disseminate what was essentially a malicious rumor? Could there have been a political motive? The only evidence for that is the language CNN uses to blur the impact of the new evidence that has emerged concerning Pierson’s misleading statements.

CNN’s writers must have worked carefully to insert the adjectives “complex” and “nuanced,” which they coupled with the assertion that the evidence has “not yet” appeared. It creates the impression that the rumor or lie might be confirmed as true at some future point in time. Just to make sure the public understands what we might call the “possibility of truth,”  White House correspondent Jeremy Diamond tells us: “None of this is cut and dried, it is complicated and it is nuanced.” Even more extraordinary is the number of times the journalists repeat the word “yet,” intended to instill the right amount of hope that the missing evidence will one day appear.

The logical gymnastics the reporters engage in produced in one of the many “yet” statements a shocking double Freudian slip that the editorial team should have caught and cut. Diamond tells the audience: “Now the United States doesn’t have that information as of yet to conclude conclusively to help [sic] the United States.” He presumably meant to help Russia, but his tautological “conclude conclusively” led him astray. It’s an example of the kind of insistence that Sigmund Freud () and, before him, saw as revealing (“The lady doth protest too much”).

The one bit of not so complex or nuanced truth we get from the CNN story is this: “One national security official said Russia’s only clear aim, as of now, is to sow discord in the United States.” That, by the way, is exactly what Sanders said when queried by a journalist on the tarmac at the Las Vegas airport.

Historical Note

Some will remember Defense Secretary in 2002 — months before the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 — affirming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Rumsfeld proudly reasoned: “Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist.”

Using the absence of evidence fallacy has become a standard practice in US foreign policy. As the Russiagate fiasco that led to the Robert Mueller-led investigation shows, it has become one of the favored logical principles not just of the government, but also of the media. It enables them to create a sense of fear and foreboding. These are the qualities of a story that attract eyeballs to their news programs. At the same time, their reporting helps to justify the often extremely aggressive and sometimes highly illegal “remedial action” taken by the same government that initially fed them the story.

CNN even provides a psychological explanation of why the misunderstanding took place. It tells us that “Pierson’s characterization of Russian interference led to pointed questions from lawmakers, which officials said caused Pierson to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be reelected.” Apparently, “pointed questions” can be dangerously sharpened weapons that poke holes in a security official’s ability to tell the truth. By emphasizing the fact of “overstepping,” CNN hides the real point of that sentence: that there is no evidence even of Putin’s preference for Trump, let alone Sanders.

Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director and current secretary of state, clarified everything last year when he proudly admitted that the CIA to “lie, cheat and steal.” We are left wondering whether the CIA trainers are ever called into corporate media such as The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC or The New York Times to train the editorial staff at least in the lying part of the job.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post CNN and the Art of Overstatement appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Every four years in America’s seemingly endless presidential election scheme, pundits trot out the old Ronald Reagan of whether or not “you” are better off now than you were four years ago. What does that mean and who exactly is the “you” in question? It is likely that Reagan was trying to speak to each of us as the singular “you.” And it is also likely that most who use the phrase today as some kind of voter test question are seeking a singular “I” answer — yes I am or no I am not. Furthermore, what does “better off” mean?

Can the Democratic Party Unite Behind Bernie Sanders?

READ MORE

Trump and his acolytes rely on the narrowest version of “I.” The question seems directed at each individual who has money in play in the stock market, owns real estate or is trying to decide between a new Bimmer and a new Benz. In Trump world, “better off” is understood to mean economically better off. Trump will trumpet his tax breaks and a rising stock market as a win for him, his wealthy friends and family members, and each of the rest of us with money in play. Sooner or later, we are certain to see Ivanka Trump assure us that she is better off.

Reagan used the pronoun “you” to cover the same ground that Trump and his acolytes want to cover this time around. But what if we make a simple change in syntax — substitute “we” for “I” and use “you” in its plural form. Once done, the focus can shift to what “better off” actually means if we are talking about more than one individual. Then we can talk about collective character instead of individual character, collective greed instead of individual greed and collective well-being instead of individual well-being.

This simple shift in focus completely reshapes the debate about a nation’s priorities. If a key measure of prosperity is the number of three-car garages in a locality, it tells us that the “I’s” have it. On the other hand, if a key measure of prosperity is the overall access to affordable transportation options in a locality, “we” are better off with less three car garages and more buses.

In this space not long ago, I wrote:

“If all that matters in today’s America is the amount of money in your pocket, your bank account or your stock account, Trump will win reelection. However, if the Democrats can make it mean something else, something different, something more than Reagan meant, there may be a path to reversing the cynical undermining of governance that further paves the way for only greed and corruption to triumph.

Maybe the nation needed Trump’s callous immorality to see Reagan’s words in a communal context that neither Reagan nor Trump intended, that each of us is only ‘better off’ if those around us are ‘better off.’ That a communal conscience can feed the soul in ways that individual economic excess never will.”

The Appeal of Bernie Sanders

If you are looking for a way to explain the appeal of Senator Bernie Sanders, maybe it has a lot to do with his appeal to those in America who have long sought an actual national commitment that matched the nation’s American exceptionalism propaganda. Before dismissing Sanders as a cranky old guy who has a lifelong commitment to a more just and egalitarian society that resonates with a few kids, try thinking about Bernie as a cranky old guy who is committed to us, to the “we” and to the plural “you.”

If you do that, maybe you can begin to comprehend that there just might be an America out there with lots of people who care about those around them, who care about the sick, the homeless, the under-educated and the quality of life in the communities in which they choose to live. This is Bernie’s audience, and it appears to be growing. It is an audience that increasingly believes in the spiritual wealth that springs from a collective conscience. That audience has a voice, a leader — and that leader is Bernie Sanders.

As for “socialism,” there may be more people than you think who have figured out that a form of “socialism” has worked out so well for the wealthy that it might now be a good time to give it a try for the rest of us. That mortgage interest tax deduction is a housing subsidy for those who own a home and borrow to do so. The more you can borrow, the more taxes you can claw back from the government based on that borrowing power. But understand that a housing subsidy for the wealthy is no less of a subsidy than a housing subsidy for the poor would be to supplement a rent payment.

Farm subsidies are just that, government subsidies, the government determining that your tax dollars should be spent on assisting farmers in need. If these decisions are made fairly with solid guidelines (and not just a giveaway to wealthy agricultural corporations), the same logic should apply to government programs to help the sick, the homeless and the under-educated. Likewise, tax “breaks” that allow both wealthy individuals and huge corporations to avoid taxes are also government , and the capital gains tax “break” subsidizes investment income over ordinary income.

While there is surely much more to discuss on this latter topic, the commentariat echo chamber of anti-socialism patter may not fully reflect that many who are choosing to educate themselves on the topic are opening their minds to a different message. And many of those people can vote and may well vote like never before.

I write this hoping that those who understand what Bernie Sanders is talking about will, at this stage of the electoral process, take every opportunity to help others understand. When the votes really start getting counted, there will be plenty of time for progressives like me to assess all the candidates in the Democratic race for their critical capacity to beat Trump. 

No one wants the scourge of the present regime to end more than I do. Maybe there are a lot of people who are thinking the same thing and are ready to take back our government from the craven oligarchs in our midst who have stolen it and are stealing our future.

*[A version of this article was cross-posted on the author’s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Bernie Sanders Is Connecting With Us appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

The rot in the Trump White House and the rancid political self-interest putrefying the Republican Party have been on display as never before. This is what a nation looks like when it has lost its way. Watching Republicans pretend they never said what they are as having said may be a new low point in America’s checkered political history. That so few Republican voters seem to care about the lies and the underlying hypocrisy continues to provide the fertile ground for mendacity and corruption to thrive.

Can Sanders or Warren Clinch the Democratic Nomination?

READ MORE

This is not to say that no Democrat in recent memory has ever said anything untrue or regrettable. But they at least seem to own it and try to explain it away. Republicans, however, are inhabiting a political universe in which readily provable events become props for an alternative narrative that derives its “veracity” from repetition.

Trump will not be removed from office and may well get reelected in November because way too many Americans willfully avoid uncomfortable truths and seek refuge in that political universe by “alternative facts.” It is hard to watch but critical to comprehend — Trump can get reelected. His acolytes will emerge on Election Day spurred to the polls by their alternative narrative. Armed with a morally-challenged sense of entitlement, fueled by racism and individual greed, and bathed in religious zeal, they will vote.

To defeat this rolling thunder, the Democrats will have to overwhelm the acolyte army with numbers. Democrats must convert their dream of a diverse and compassionate electorate into a wave of voters on Election Day. Those who say they are willing to fight for good governance have to stop talking about it and show up at the polls this time. It is way too late to wait for next time.

That wave must include everyone worried about the health of the planet, everyone who seeks racial justice, those who rail against willful ignorance, those from elsewhere and those who believe that access to meaningful health care and quality education must be available to all, without exception.

Get Voting

I will vote this time as I have tried to do every time since I got the right to vote. I have lost more than I have won, but I have voted every time I could to choose America’s leaders. I am a 74-year-old white male, now retired, with access to meaningful health care, the lifelong beneficiary of access to a quality education and resources to spare. I will vote for progressives when they are on the ballot and Democrats whenever they have a Republican opponent. But a lot of people who look like me and are privileged like me don’t vote like me.

This time, as last time, there simply will not be enough well-intentioned progressive white voters to win much of anything outside of a few coastal states. This time, to ensure Trump’s defeat, black voters have to vote in record numbers, with Trump’s racist words and deeds propelling every black woman to carry her community to the polls. Latinos have to get each other to polls using the images of caged Latino children to make sure that every single one in their communities eligible to vote will vote this time to erase the reality behind those images. And millennials have to stop pretending that Netflix matters more than network news and get their collective asses to the polls to vote to save the planet they are inheriting from my generation that has screwed it up so badly.

And, perhaps most important of all, it does not matter who the Democrats nominate. That candidate has to win this time. It is easy for some like me to rally to Bernie Sanders. Many of us think he would make a wonderful president, bringing a lifelong commitment to transformative change to a dying democracy. I am a socialist, and so is he. But what if Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg wins the nomination instead of Sanders? It matters a great deal, but this time it cannot matter enough to allow us to care so little about so much.

For starters, any Democrat still in the running will try to restore some semblance of good governance and begin to undo the damage already done by the Trump cabal to the institutional foundation of the nation. All of them will offer a vision of a government that functions to do the things that government is supposed to do — ensure national security, protect the environment and provide resources to meet the basic needs of the citizenry. 

The words of any Democrat nominee will at least momentarily renew the spirit. There will not be a Democratic version of “” or “” this time around.

So, if Biden wins the nomination, his basic decency and long devotion to public service will be enough, even though I expect his administration will transform little that needs to be transformed while devoting itself to undoing the damage. With Bloomberg, trust is the issue. Billionaires do not become billionaires without craven self-interest at the heart of their creed, often leaving a lot of broken dreams in their wake. Yet Bloomberg is smart, and he may be able to deliver a competent team that will begin to restore public faith in governance and government. He surely will fight to undo the damage.

No Time to Fail

While this discussion leaves out the rest of the field for now, it seeks to make a point. It matters a great deal this time. I don’t want to wait anymore for universal access to meaningful health care, for racial justice, for an equitable economy, for confiscated guns or for an end to America’s corrosive contribution to the world’s killing fields. But, under even the best circumstances, I am likely to have to settle for steps toward those ends.

What I cannot settle for this time is enabling the present national race to the bottom to continue simply because those with a stake in a better America can’t figure out how to vote. Now is the time to organize, advocate, raise the necessary funds and vote to define a new national character animated by a collective conscience that honors the common good. The American people have failed before, and they cannot fail again this time.

*[This article was cross-posted on the author’s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Testing America’s National Character appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

For many, it confirms that The New York Times has abandoned its presumed position of leadership. Some see it as a mockery of whatever values it was still pretending to uphold. And it wasn’t just the endorsement itself, but the way it was done. Presented as a self-promotional half-hour-long TV show in which spectators were invited to witness the seriously elaborate process of The Times’ decision-making before discovering the suspense-laden outcome, many viewers lost patience before the program could reach its monumentally important conclusion that would deliver the judgment of the gods.

In the Run-Up to the US Election, Storytelling Becomes Rather Less Innocent

READ MORE

In an impatient, luminary journalist and inspired storyteller Dan Rather complained of having to watch a reality show and concluded: “I’m comfortable flipping around Netflix and waiting until tomorrow for their announcement.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Two:

A number that in US culture represents the shame of indecision, the failure to show that highest of moral virtues, resoluteness and, worse, signals the renunciation of the obligation to always focus on the only thing that counts: the uniqueness of being number one

Contextual Note

Many have called The NYT’s double endorsement a . Such a critical judgment can be explained by the curious status the idea of the number two has in US culture. To be taken seriously, two must signify the staging of a competition or even a combat that can only be resolved through the victory of one of the competitors.

That’s why, unlike most other developed countries, there are only two political parties in the US. Like two teams in professional sports, they exist to be paired together in regularly programmed combat to provide the spectacle of seeing which one can vanquish the other. One of the reasons that football (which is known as soccer to Americans) can never reach the level of popularity of American sports in the US is that a game can end in, with no cry of victory and no whimper of defeat. (The other even more obvious reason is that, as a game, it isn’t properly structured to permit the commercial breaks that are essential for American TV broadcasts.)

The number two lacks respectability. Marriage may be the one institution that is still permitted to celebrate the number two, but that seems to be a question of biological fatalism rather than comfort with the idea of a pair. And even so, the elevation of divorce to the level of the domestic norm means that people perceive the idea of two as fragile and temporary and is always in need of being overcome.

For poker players, a pair of deuces represents the lowest possible winning hand, which means that two stands as something of negligible value. Deuces are as low as you can go, but while having two deuces in your hand lends them some value, the only way to make them pay off is with bluffing. Poker players know that two of a kind, even of aces, designates the bottom of the barrel. Three of kind brings you into the shining realm of noble combinations, followed by the increasing glory of straights, flushes, full houses and four of a kind.

Although the $2 bill has existed since 1862, it remains to this day an extremely rare denomination. John Bennardo, the producer and director of a documentary on the $2 bill, offered several complementary explanations for the shameful status of the banknote.

The first derives from what most people perceive as the most disgraceful of professions: politics. “Politicians used to be known for bribing people for votes, and they would give them a $2 bill, so if you had one it meant that perhaps you’d been bribed by a politician,” he said. He then cited another professional activity, nearly (but not quite) as shameful: “Prostitution back in the day was $2 for a trick, so if you were spending $2 bills it might get you into trouble with your wife.” His final example is the horse races: “$2 is the standard bet at a race track, so if you were betting $2 and you won, you might get a bunch of $2 bills back and that would show that you were gambling.”

Historical Note

CBS News identified the that swayed The Times’ jury toward selecting two candidates. The first was the idea of being “open to new ideas,” which justified the selection of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. The second was “seeking stability,” which attracted them to Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.

Going in both of those directions represents The NYT’s effort to acknowledge and fail to take a position on an undeniable historical trend: the splitting of the Democratic Party into two distinct camps. It’s the Clintonite establishment, often called the center, and the progressives, often termed the radical left. Over recent decades (and perhaps longer), The New York Times, generally kind to Democrats, has demonstrated its discomfort with anything that challenged establishment values. But with its image as a “liberal” newspaper appealing to educated, “open-minded” Americans, it has always promoted a culture that embraces establishment values while seeking to show its indulgent curiosity for some of the themes that challenge those values.

Its choice of “two” for the endorsement sends a further message that applies to today’s historical situation. Thanks to the history of the 2016 presidential election and recent polling, the public appears to understand that, while there is a vast field of candidates to choose from, there is clearly one identified leader of each of the wings of the Democratic Party: Joe Biden, on the side of the establishment, and Bernie Sanders, on the progressive side. The others are competing with them for the leadership of their wings but, despite the advanced age of these two men, they have weathered the storms and proved their symbolic positioning.

Over the current election cycle, The Times has been indulgent with former Vice President Biden and critical of Senator Sanders throughout the duration of the campaign. Sanders’ capacity not only to maintain his symbolic leadership but also to generate exceptional enthusiasm among large swathes of the population appears to worry The Times. It truly fears that Sanders may generate enough enthusiasm to win the party nomination and possibly even the election in November, after which he might continue to promote policies that the business, financial and political oligarchy finds threatening. That would be the worst of all possible worlds for the oligarchs who count on The New York Times to define and constrain the realm of “sane politics.” (Among the topics of “sane politics” that The Times newsroom pushed for three years was Russiagate. Among the “sane” causes it promoted under George W. Bush was the invasion of Iraq in 2003)

As many of the commentators have remarked, the point of an endorsement is to identify exactly one preferred candidate, not to deliver the suspect message that “politics comes in two flavors so take your pick.” By selecting two candidates to endorse and appealing to the fact that both are women, The Times has found the most convenient way of marginalizing the one candidate who, because of his very real prospect of transforming the Democratic Party, clearly makes them ill at ease. (The NYT prefers to systematically smear another candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, who challenges the newspaper’s even more essential commitment to US exceptionalism and imperial reach.)

Sanders’ policies and personality contradict everything The Times has consistently stood for: the maintenance and extension of a superficially prosperous status quo that depends on what it considers to be the necessarily “benevolent” project of US economic, military and political imperialism. It’s a program the “liberal” newspaper supported even during Bush’s irresponsible adventurism in the Middle East in the name of ensuring international stability. It’s “benevolent” because Americans always play the role of the good guys, even if the stability they promise to enforce destabilizes an entire region and its neighboring continents.

As someone who appreciates the system as it is, Amy Klobuchar fulfills The Times’ criterion of “seeking stability.” Though Elizabeth Warren made her reputation as a left-wing radical on domestic issues, she has made a serious effort in recent months to show her support for a similar commitment to stability by affirming that, on the economic front, unlike the socialist Sanders, committed to the basic tenets of US ideology. She identified herself as “capitalist to my bones” and, though shaky on foreign policy, she has shown herself to be globally supportive of an aggressive attitude toward national movements that oppose Western domination.

Warren is not, however, quite as keen as The Times on invasion, war and occupation, but once elected, that can be remedied (as it was for the peace candidate, Barack Obama, in 2008). For The Times, her positions on the economic justice as a corrective to monopolistic capitalism indicates that she is “open to new ideas,” which the newspaper finds deeply reassuring because it knows that new ideas often have no impact on practical politics.

Though Klobuchar is polling at only around 4%, The Times considers her a, which means that, if elected, she will never let any of the ideas to which she may or may not be open get in the way of carrying on politics as usual.

Many of the have complained that The Times has demonstrated its incoherence by endorsing two women with different “policy agendas, and fundamentally different world views.” To the extent that Warren continues to be identified as the other progressive alongside Sanders, The Times’ position does appear potentially contradictory. Which wing of the party is The NYT supporting: the center or the left? But since the real goal of the endorsement was to use two sticks to beat down the one villain that The Times appears most worried about, Warren and Klobuchar are similar enough to get the job done on terms that the paper appreciates.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post The New York Times Sees Double appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

During the Democratic presidential debate on January 14, in a bizarre line of questioning on a bit of campaign gossip reported third-hand, CNN’s moderators sought to get to the bottom of what they saw as the major issue of the day. This concerned whether Bernie Sanders had, during a private meeting toward the end of 2018, told Elizabeth Warren that “he believed a woman could not win” the presidency.

Can Sanders or Warren Clinch the Democratic Nomination?

READ MORE

During the debate organized and broadcast by CNN, moderator Abby Phillip first addressed Senator Sanders, citing the rumor and claiming that Warren had confirmed it: “In 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?” Sanders immediately denied having said it and explained why it made no sense.

Up to that point, the only Senator Warren had made on the rumor had been when she explained two days earlier: “Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.” This sounds as if it was a debate about probability or weighing the odds, not about the legitimacy of a female president. But CNN clearly decided that the Warren campaign’s comprehensible but trivial ploy to reveal a secret summed up Sanders’ sincere and definitive viewpoint about women in politics.

Immediately after Sanders’ explanation, Phillip began by reading from her script, rather than reacting to the explanation Sanders had just given. She asked Warren: “What did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” Warren began her answer cleverly with the phrase, “I disagreed,” which, as any lawyer will recognize, indicated that she accepted the factual basis of the question without committing herself to affirm it. She then added: “This question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised and it’s time for us to attack it head on.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Raised question:

A speculative question that can be turned into a living controversy through the injection of unrelated substances and hot air, much like a loaf of bread that is raised by mixing inert dough with leavening and subjecting it to intense heat

Contextual Note

Warren chose her words carefully when she said, “This question 
 has been raised” in response to Phillip’s question. Just as her statement, “I disagreed” avoided making a direct accusation by using the passive form of the verb, Warren avoided directly implicating Sanders, since the sentence literally means someone, somewhere has raised this question at some point in time. She cleverly left the impression that she validated the assumption contained in the moderator’s question.

Though the issue lacked any serious substance, this was clearly a tense moment, which, from CNN’s point of view, makes for exciting television. A day after the debate, the news broadcaster released the that followed the debate in which Warren appeared to refuse to shake Sanders’ hand. The audio revealed that she accused Sanders of calling her a liar on national TV, presumably because he denied uttering the words quoted by Philip. Sanders responded, “You called me a liar,” though he may have recognized her talent for carefully avoiding a direct accusation.

CNN has been milking this story all week and has even managed to turn it into a kind of TV serial, with at least three successive episodes and possibly more to come. For an objective observer, it should stand as an illustration of everything honest journalism should not be, as well as a demonstration of how political rhetoric can work in the hands of a clever politician such as Warren. She stole the show with her set-piece that followed, about the superior performance of female candidates compared to men. Her handling of the controversy with Sanders demonstrated her ability to produce effective, cleverly disingenuous rhetoric. She was, after all, trained to be a lawyer before going into teaching and politics.

As many serious have pointed out, CNN’s lines of questioning throughout the Democratic debate revealed a total insensitivity to political and even historical context. The questions were written to make all the candidates uncomfortable, some more than others. But a good journalist should know that the point of such challenging questions is to open a debate and to probe into motivations while revealing possible contradictions. Instead, CNN’s moderators simply followed a script and took no account of the varying points of view expressed on issues — such as foreign policy — that are complex and vital for the public to understand, especially in the current context.

In the case of the Warren/Sanders spat, rather than inquire as to what the tenor of the original conversation had been back in 2018, Phillip simply assumed the statement was true and asked Sanders to defend a position he credibly denies having. In the courtroom tradition of the US, this type of interrogation is equated with the: “When did you stop beating your wife?”

CNN’s journalists were apparently instructed to suppress any journalistic curiosity they might have had about establishing what was actually said in the private conversation between Sanders and Warren. Phillip carefully avoided the opportunity to find out whether there may have been a misunderstanding. As Matt Taibbi on Rolling Stone concerning the question Phillip asked: “Not ‘did you say that,’ but ‘why did you say that?’”

A good journalist would have asked Sanders an even more probing question: What was that conversation all about in which you reportedly doubted the capacity of a woman to win the election? The simple word “reportedly” not only reminds the audience of the fact that the quote is hearsay. It also makes it possible to aim for clarity and at least approach the facts. But CNN apparently had a different agenda.

If the truth ever were to come out, a likely scenario for the conversation would have been a comparison between the two candidates of their weaknesses. Warren might have suggested that at 78 years old, age was his enemy. Sanders may have countered that a woman would be in a particularly vulnerable position facing President Donald Trump. If that were the case, Warren knew she had a trump card (no pun intended). Sanders could not bring up, in public, her point about his age because it would highlight his weakness. But, when needed, Warren could cite his remark about being a woman. 

If Warren can succeed at that style of poker with Sanders, she might just be able to accomplish something similar with Trump. Electoral politics is all about exploiting any advantage you can find to win the game.

Historical Note

Matt Taibbi calls this a “CNN ambush” and cites another equally egregious one from a presidential debate in recent history, “when Bernard Shaw in 1988 crotch-kicked Mike Dukakis with a question about whether he’d favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife, Kitty.”

Taibbi makes the point that the truly controversial question here that emerges from this debate is not Sanders’ attitude toward women in politics, but rather the responsibility of the media, and CNN in particular, with regard to investigating and reporting real news. As he observes after citing many of the other clearly biased features of CNN’s handling of this week’s debate, the real winner may have been Donald Trump, who has repeatedly accused CNN of being “fake news.”

CNN put on a convincing display of its ability to present a hidden agenda as news and its taste for manipulating democratic processes. Taibbi sums up this sorry performance: “CNN bid farewell to what remained of its reputation as a nonpolitical actor via a remarkable stretch of factually dubious reporting, bent commentary, and heavy-handed messaging.”

The history of the relationship between politics and the media in the US over the past half-century has been one of continuous degradation. The news presented in the corporate media has increasingly become nothing more than a form of entertainment. Taibbi quotes a comment of Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chair and, preceding the debate: “This is a heavyweight match tonight. This is going to be frisky, it’s going to be competitive.” 

This is the language of the world of professional sports, veering toward the hyperreal style of professional wrestling rather than that of honest athletic competitions. By turning public political discourse into, at best, a match of cleverly disingenuous practitioners of political rhetoric and, at worst, a pre-scripted TV serial, is it any wonder that the public has lost its last vestige of faith in US democracy and the media?

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post At the Democratic Debate, CNN Magnifies the Rumors appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Importantly, these hearings should be yet another reminder that having some competent public servants in key positions is no guarantee against the development and execution of dubious policy decisions at great cost to the nation. Often-studied foreign policy disasters in, for example, Iraq and Vietnam continue to yield few lessons learned.

The current clash over Trump’s actions in Ukraine is instructive not just for impeachment purposes, but for examining serious institutional shortcomings in the development and execution of public policy. The “official” US policy toward Ukraine requires the overt deification of Ukraine as a vulnerable cradle of latent democracy striving to be free and to align itself with American ideals. The Trump version of Ukraine policy features a weak and faltering country of little consequence to US interests that can be corruptly bent to serve his personal and political interests. The truth about Ukraine almost surely lies somewhere in between.

If Russia overwhelmed Ukraine tomorrow and set up shop there, not much would be lost in America while the narrative got sorted out. Therefore, examination of the Ukraine drama should be inwardly focused to serve as an alarm about the extent to which US institutions are being undermined every day by Trump and his cabal and the putrefaction of the Republican Party. Much of value is being lost in America every day. If the US government is allowed to further rot from the top, both national security and institutional integrity are at grave risk.

With this backdrop in mind, there is a natural inner turmoil among those on the left in America that pits disposing of Trump as the only priority against an attempt to seize the moment created by Trump to drive home long overdue systemic reforms in an America hopelessly corrupted by unrestrained capitalism and its corporate progeny. If you think the nation is in peril on either front, the current Democratic Party “dialogue” should be a cause for critical concern.

The easiest path to angst is to picture a titanic battle between Trump and Joe Biden. The first is a corrupt and narcissistic pathological liar with a highly committed following of willfully ignorant and dangerously self-interested acolytes, and the other is an aging centrist throwback with a sometimes distinguished past, a limited present and a hardly committed following of wistfully hopeful supporters looking for anything that will upend Trump. Maybe hope can win, but the last time it did, the nation didn’t get much out of it.

Two Rich Guys From New York

Enter Michael Bloomberg, another old white man, into the Democratic scrum. Bloomberg has tons of money, earned largely by monetizing what originally seemed like a good idea, something of an earlier version of Mark Zuckerberg. He is also fairly articulate, has some serious experience at governance, and seems fully committed to advancing at least two issues of critical importance to the left — addressing climate change and confronting rampant gun violence. Bloomberg would likely be an upgrade from Biden as a president, but he seems so short of the common touch that it is hard to see him delivering much more than Hillary Clinton was able to deliver in 2016. That could leave the nation in serious peril of a Trump repeat.

If Bloomberg somehow captures the Democratic Party nomination, and you aren’t too concerned about who wins the presidential election in 2020, it could be entertaining to watch two self-proclaimed rich guys from New York trying to outdo each other for the “man of the people” mantle. America again is the big loser.

So let’s suppose for a moment —those of us on the left who don’t want to settle — that sending Trump to prison is not enough of a goal. That means a protracted fight for the Democratic nomination, most probably trying to ride Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to near the finish line and then making the hard choice about who should win in the end. The risk is high that neither Sanders nor Warren can win the general election. But the reward could be very high if one of them does.

I think it is way too early to give up on the fight for true systemic reform. The continuing battle is for the soul of the Democratic Party, a battle launched in 2016 by Sanders. It is way too early to let Biden and Bloomberg have a clear path to anything, because even if one of them beats Trump, the reward will be four years of trying to undo the Trump damage to remake the nation in Barack Obama’s image. This is not nearly enough for me at this juncture.

What Americans Need

I want single-payer health insurance, I want universal access to meaningful health care, I want a living wage for everyone, I want real tax reform, I want strong government regulation of capitalism’s excesses, I want confiscatory gun control, I want real reduction of student debt, I want a national affordable housing program, I want a humane and welcoming immigration system, and I want us all to confront the racial demons that are at the core of much of what ails the nation. Then, I want America to lead the way to a cleaner environment, to a respect for the world’s natural resources and to an assault on climate change. And I want religion out of public life. 

This is a lot to ask of an America mired in deep social, cultural, racial and ethnic divisions. But I am sure of one thing — that to accomplish any of what I want, the nation must reject Trump and his warped national vision. To that end, I may have to be willing to sacrifice some of what I want for all of what the nation most needs now.

*[A version of this article was cross-posted on the author’s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post What Americans Need in 2020 appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Concerning the major reforms required to address the distinctly unsolvable problems at the core of the US economy — such as the debt crisis as well as the stultifying cost of health care and education — the two candidates have shown themselves ready to jump into the ring and challenge any Democrat who says that the solutions to these issues can only be achieved by minimalist approaches consisting primarily of gentle nudging or minor tweaks to existing laws and institutions.

As a subsidiary of Fox News — a powerful news outlet dedicated to seeking ways to discredit Democrats — Fox Business has its own for calling attention to the points of convergence and divergence between the two progressive candidates. Thanks to a debate that has increasingly focused on taxing billionaires’ fortunes, Fox focuses on a quasi-philosophical question on which Sanders and Warren appear to disagree. It is, quite simply, whether billionaires should or should not exist. Since Sanders has, on moral grounds, that they shouldn’t exist, the media obviously wanted to know if Warren agrees.

Warren’s response to the question correlates with her — intended clearly to differentiate herself from the “Democratic socialist” Sanders — that she is a capitalist to the bones. “Look, somebody has a great idea, and they follow it through and they work hard and they build something, good for them,” Warren said.

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Great idea:

In the framework of the “American dream,” the ideal substitute for the otherwise inevitable conclusion that hard work is the unique natural source of income. Belief in the power of the “great idea” justifies the average person’s faith in the moral value of capitalism, a system in which there is one way to survive — hard work — and two ways to become successful: start with a large sum of inherited money or come up with the kind of great idea that can con masses of people into paying considerably more than the actual worth of the great product that results from the great idea.

Contextual Note

The media shy away from the idea that Sanders and Warren are a tag team for two notable reasons. One is political and the other cultural.

The cultural reason boils down to the notion that an election, rather than being an opportunity to assess ideas and plans for government, is essentially a competition between ambitious, talented individuals. Casting the two progressive candidates as combative rivals, even while recognizing the similarities in their thinking and programs, allows the media to comfort the idea, present at the core of American culture, that life itself is a zero-sum game played out by ambitious individuals.

On any issue and at any given moment, everyone is either a winner or a loser. Losers can nevertheless hope to win the next time, just as winners will fear losing the next time. Alas, it’s often the ideas themselves that are lost or forgotten once the winner emerges and the loser retreats into the shadows.

The political reason follows the same logic but turns out to be a bit more cynical. The public sees Sanders and Warren as similar in their take on the economy and their insistence on the need for a serious shift in the approach to essential dollars-and-cents questions. The media, in contrast, want every election to look like a horse race in which they can highlight the drama of competing thoroughbreds digging their hoofs in the dirt to be the one to cross the line first as the crowd expresses its rising emotion. Treating the two progressive candidates as rivals rather than as objective allies allows the media to focus on the combat rather than the substance of the issues they raise.

This has an advantage for the media. It allows them to avoid the real story the polls have been telling, one that reflects the deeper trends in US politics, which the media appear to prefer ignoring because it would oblige them to think rather than just report. It concerns the growing fault line within the Democratic Party itself, which has little to do with the individual candidates and everything to do with the future of the republic.

There is, after all, more than one way to read the endless parade of polls that mark the campaign. The corporate media gain by reinforcing the belief that an election is nothing more than a horse race. But the real story delivers a lesson the establishment Democrats, who guide much of the media’s reporting, don’t want voters to hear.

Most observers seem to agree that there are three leading Democratic candidates among the 20 or so who have been announced: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Practically everyone agrees that Biden and some of the candidates with low polling numbers (Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris and Julian Castro, for example) represent the Democratic establishment. As the former vice president under Barack Obama, Biden himself embodies it nearly as emblematically as Hillary Clinton.

The real story of this election is less a question of which individual in the party will emerge as the Democratic National Convention’s nominee, but rather which side in the rift that now divides the Democratic Party in two will end up carrying the party’s flag to battle in 2020 against the redoubtable Donald Trump.

The rift began with Bernie Sanders’ startlingly effective primary campaign against Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. With the arrival of the youthful, feminine contingent now referred to as “The Squad” after the 2018 midterm elections, the movement initiated by Sanders has turned into a commanding historical trend. Whether it will transform the Democratic Party, disappear into the mists of history as a minor, losing challenge to the authority of a dominant system or spawn a reconfiguration of the entire political landscape, possibly with the emergence of a third party, no one knows. For the moment, all eyes are focused on the horse race. 

The gap between the establishmentarians and the progressive trouble-makers — which, in terms of voting blocks, is also a generational gap — has nevertheless created a dramatic scenario that upsets and radically undermines the reassuring sense of a unified historical mission that dominated an era of tranquility, extending from Bill Clinton’s presidency through Barack Obama’s.

The political headlines now focus regularly on which candidate is ahead in the polls, who is advancing and who’s falling behind. That has enabled Biden, the emblem of the establishment, to continue to appear as the favorite, even in polls where Warren equals or even surpasses his score.

But if the media analyzed the drama of the primaries in terms of its long-term historical significance — the question of which political and economic philosophy (and which generation) will achieve dominance inside the Democratic electorate — Biden and the other establishment Democrats would be trailing miserably behind the combined popularity of Sanders and Warren. By the same token, in terms of pure marketing impact, The Squad have clearly outdistanced the hyper-conventional Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives.

Historical Note

The 2016 Democratic primary resulted in a head-to-head that Hillary Clinton had to win to reassure the Democratic Party that it was still the political force crafted by her husband a quarter of a century earlier. The Democratic National Committee did everything it needed to do and more to ensure that result. Bernie Sanders couldn’t count on the party’s machinery, which meant that even if he had pulled marginally ahead, he would have remained in a position of weakness. 

The corporate capitalism defended by Clinton and Pelosi constituted the party’s fundamental strength. It presented itself as capable of credibly governing a powerful set of institutions — financial, military, industrial and global in their intricately woven economic and cultural complexity — that defined the wooly concept known as the “national interest.” This has come to mean that the trivial interests and concerns of ordinary citizens will always be subsidiary to the more deeply-considered, more judiciously-weighed interests of the privately-owned corporations charged metaphorically with the programming of what we are tempted to call the “government-corporate operating system.” The metaphor, as in all hyperreal structures, may, in many people’s minds, be more real and have more impact than reality itself.

The algorithms that regulate the system’s behavior are coded deep within its logic, which was stabilized ideologically nearly two centuries ago, first in the UK and then, with increased agility, in the US, as the logic of empire moved from one side of the Atlantic to the other. A recent article in The New Yorker the founder of The Economist, James Wilson, who in the 19th century specifically defended the sanctity of profit, in comparison to possible concerns about the health of a company’s customers or workers, with this iron-clad statement of principle: “Where the most profit is made, the public is best served. Limit the profit, and you limit the exertion of ingenuity in a thousand ways.”

That, according to the system’s logic repeated in today’s debates, is why we need billionaires. Society places a higher premium on ingenuity and the riches it creates than on people’s well-being. Some find the logic flawed, but even our system of education has inculcated in us the axiom that, because successful innovation — Warren’s “great idea” — produces billionaires, the only valid reason for having a great idea and innovating is to get rich. The corollary is that if something has made someone rich, it is innovative and socially desirable. 

To differentiate herself from Sanders, Warren has demonstrated her own ingenuity by hitting upon a compromise that even the existing system can accept as consistent with its logic: “You make it to the top, to the tip-top, then the answer is: Pay a wealth tax so we can invest and create opportunities for everyone else.” 

The only flaw in her logic is that in a society that insists everything is about competitive advantage, the motivation to “create opportunities for everyone else” simply doesn’t exist or, rather, can’t compete with the motivation to accumulate as much as possible for oneself. That line of code about the value of generosity and sharing was never written into the operating system. And had anyone attempted it, it would have produced a fatal system error.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Elizabeth Warren’s Grudging Acceptance of Billionaires appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Interviewed by CNBC, Cooperman because, while defending billionaires, he also criticized Donald Trump. He went so far as to encourage the sitting president and fellow billionaire to retire from politics, while nevertheless praising the Republican president for the positive effect he has had on the stock market. He appears to believe that Trump’s systematic political and economic gifts to the super-wealthy may translate, in the mind of the public, as unwelcome PR for the moneyed class.

Once his criticism of Trump was out of the way, Cooperman expressed a far more severe opinion of the political platforms of Democratic primary candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, whom he accused of “presenting a lot of ideas to the public which are morally and socially bankrupt.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Morally bankrupt:

A meaningless insult typically used by people who are more familiar with the mechanics and strategies related to bankruptcy than with moral principles

Contextual Note

To set the scene in the interview, Cooperman prefaced his remarks with the disclaimer, “I’m not a political analyst, I’m a financial analyst.” Nor is he a moral philosopher, it should be noticed. Cooperman does at one point in the interview attempt to quote Aristotle, punctuating his diatribe against today’s politicians with this remark: “Aristotle I think observed that basically the last virtue of a society is tolerance and indifference.” At least Cooperman is honest when he admits that he “thinks” Aristotle said something that he never actually said, though it would be difficult to make any sense out of his reformulation of Aristotle’s thought.

Cooperman’s attempt at interpreting Aristotle reveals not only his ignorance of Greek philosophy, but also his failure to mention the of this quote. The apocryphal quotation he attributes to Aristotle usually goes like this: “Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” It is a pure invention that has apparently been circulating for over a century in white supremacist publications as an argument against multiculturalism.

Had Cooperman consulted Aristotle’s writings, he might have taken away this far more pertinent and succinct lesson from his work: “.” Aristotle argues that from a moral point of view “all riches must have a limit,” while admitting that in practice “all getters of wealth increase their hoard of coin without limit.” As one commentator of Aristotle’s political thought, “For Aristotle, the legitimate end of money is as a medium of exchange but not as wealth or as a store of value.”

Aristotle makes this reproach to those who, like modern billionaires, focus on accumulating wealth: “Nevertheless, some men turn every quality or art into a means of getting wealth; this they conceive to be the end, and to the promotion of the end they think all things must contribute.” What better description could anyone imagine of the narrow-minded reasoning of a hedge fund manager?

In other words, Cooperman himself offers as a supreme example of intellectual bankruptcy augmented by moral perversion when he cites a half-baked idea that derives from the worst racist traditions spawned by right-wing American culture. And yet, the media present Cooperman as basically a “good guy” because he’s rich — therefore to be admired — and because he must be “liberal” as he says he’s in favor of a progressive tax system. He even strives to distance himself from his own racist attachments evident in the phony Aristotle quote by citing a black conservative economist, Thomas Sowell, insisting on his African American identity: “Since this is an era when many people are concerned about fairness and social justice, what is your fair share of what someone else has worked for?”

Cooperman calls this the “essence of the argument.” Translated into pragmatic English, it conveys this meaning: We rich people will let those who are too lazy to be rich steal some of our honestly earned wealth because we are generous people, but we will also tell you what your “fair share” is. Or as the black singer, in a far more philosophical treatment of the same subject: “Rich relations give/ Crust of bread and such/ You can help yourself/ But don’t take too much.”

Historical Note

If Cooperman really trusts Aristotle, he should pay heed to a pithy bit of the philosopher’s wisdom undoubtedly intended for the edification of hedge fund managers: “For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest.”

For centuries, Christian Europe took this Greek condemnation of usury so seriously that the Catholic Church banned lending at interest, as anyone familiar with Shakespeare’s play, “The Merchant of Venice,” will be aware. Islamic banking still follows this tradition. Until the triumph of capitalism in the 18th century, when they needed cash, Christians somewhat hypocritically managed to deal with this moral stricture by subcontracting to Jews the nasty business of lending with interest. That hypocrisy played a role in aggravating the phenomenon of anti-Semitism in Europe, defining the Jews as an imperfect race that is outside the true moral law.

For right-wing thinkers and committed racists, that tradition persists today. As Ann Coulter it back in 2007, “We just want Jews to be perfected.” For the enlightenment of her Jewish interviewer on CNBC, she added this: “We consider ourselves perfected Christians.”

Cooperman calls Warren’s wealth tax “morally bankrupt.” But what moral philosophy is he appealing to? We know it isn’t Aristotle’s ethics and, of course, it can’t be the Christian tradition that began with two notable and often-cited warnings. Jesus provided the first (): “[I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” St Paul added this reflection (): “The love of money is the root of all evil.”

Like many rich Americans, Cooperman probably believes that, as a privileged citizen of the United States, a nation blessed by God, he has already entered the kingdom of heaven and no longer needs to worry about squeezing through the eye of the needle.

Cooperman may be unconsciously appealing to a philosophical tradition that can be traced back to , who saw property as an “inalienable” right, alongside life and liberty. The nation’s founders considered property — which, for some, included slaves — as sacred. John Adams that, “The moment an idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” 

The libertarian strain in US politics shows that Americans are still not clear about whether the nation itself has the right to tax something that they consider sacred, notably their “hard-earned cash,” which billionaires continue accumulating even in their sleep. Then there is the question of the status of money: Is it property or is it, as Aristotle maintained, something designed by the community to be used for exchange?

In the first case, money or wealth is the property of the individual who controls it. In the second, it has a social definition, related to the role it plays in human relations. The wealth of a nation is something that is bound to be shared. That reflects a cultural, rather than a purely legal principle. It justifies the taxing of citizens and deciding on the rules of taxation. Or as one man stated two millennia ago, it is about unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. 

The author Philip Goff : “This feeling that your pre-tax income is ‘your money’ is difficult to shake.” That appears to be what’s behind the moral principle — if that’s what it can be called — that Cooperman is appealing to. In US culture, taxation, though acknowledged as minimally necessary, is seen as immoral, an assault on the pristine purity of property. 

But, of course, the US Constitution defines the government’s right to levy taxes. Cooperman’s “moral” sentiment about property and wealth being inalienable is undermined by the law itself and has been throughout human history. Once anyone — even a billionaire — acknowledges the government’s right to tax while respecting the duty to apply the law equitably, the moral quality of that government’s policies can only be judged on whether they are oriented toward the public good or private interests.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders insist they are focused on the public good. In contrast, Leon Cooperman appears to be voting for the priority of private interests, which, after all, is a totally understandable position for a billionaire.

BREAKING NEWS: A billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, that he may step into the Democratic primaries to save the party and defeat billionaire Donald Trump.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post US Media Look to Billionaires for Moral Wisdom appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Now, The Times has perceived a new source of disappointment: the lackluster roster of electable establishment Democratic candidates for the upcoming presidential primaries. Their preferred figure, Joe Biden, has shown himself to be vulnerable and not only in the primaries. The shady business with his son in Ukraine will make him an easy target for US President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

For The NY Times and establishment Democrats, the next most likely candidates are two obviously uncontrollable radicals: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, though Warren may be easier to bring into the fold than Sanders. Warren has even gone to the trouble of as a “capitalist to my bones.”

Still, all middle-of-the-road Democrats consider the pair to be “extremists” for daring to challenge the orthodoxy of the current system of oligarchic capitalism. Their unpardonable sin will be to raise taxes to pay for expensive reforms. Along with Wall Street and much of the media, mainstream Democrats have pushed the idea that Sanders and Warren are seriously threatening to undermine the institutions the Democratic Party is most committed to and dependent on: the profitability of the corporate sector and an aggressive foreign policy that legitimizes war.

Reporting on the quandary that the Democratic Party finds itself in today, the testimony of Connie Schultz: “There’s more anxiety than ever.” Schultz is a journalist “married to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another Democrat who some in the party would like to see join the race.” 

Other voices have similarly cried out: “‘I can see it, I can feel it, I can hear it,’ Mitch Landrieu, the former New Orleans mayor, said of the unease within the party.” Britain’s The Independent, evoking a possible new run for Clinton, reaches: “[T]he report illustrates a deep unease within the Democratic donor and establishment class, which backed Ms Clinton strong and early during the 2016 election.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Unease:

For wealthy people, the feeling of profound discomfort associated with their fear of not receiving a significant payback for money spent on a political bet that may fail

Contextual Note

Why are they so worried? What’s wrong with the current crop of candidates? After all, President Trump appears to be an agonizing combatant, on the verge of impeachment, soon to be imitating Richard III, ready to do a deal to exchange his kingdom for a horse to whisk him back to Mar-a-Lago. Couldn’t any of the current Democratic candidates beat him in a fair fight?

A look at the roster that so worries the Democratic team management tells an interesting story. There’s a crowd-pleasing centrist who happens to be gay, which might just work. It would be great if he wasn’t actually gay but simply a “normal” (discreetly unmarried) politician who expressed his sympathy for people who were gay and his commitment to defend their rights.

Every reasonable person in the party has assessed the danger. Back in the America of 1960, the politically astute realized that the Roman Catholic (and Irish) John F. Kennedy could never be elected and shouldn’t have received the nomination. Likewise, running a gay today would be far too risky to gamble on. The prospect of barring a gay from the White House would excite and unify the Republicans. Kennedy nevertheless did get the nomination and won. But of course, that was simply a stroke of good fortune, thanks principally to the Roman Catholic Italian mafia in Chicago that rigged the election in his favor and delivered the crucial electoral votes of Illinois.

Beyond the trio of Biden, Warren and Sanders, there’s a range of marginals fighting it out on the monthly debate stage: a pure techie from Silicon Valley; a would-be Obama clone from New Jersey; a black woman, former prosecutor from California with less than sterling credentials as state attorney general; a maverick Texan known for his liberal use of bleepable words and his un-American opposition to the possession of assault weapons (a weakness worse than being gay); a billionaire willing to play on Trump’s electoral promise that consisted of saying, “I’m so rich I don’t need to cheat”; some more centrists with a fuzzy public image; and finally a female veteran who single-handedly challenges the war mentality that every reasonable Democrat knows is the key to ensuring the US economy’s leadership in the global economy.

Hillary Clinton has now “revealed” that this minor candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, is either a Russian or a (or both), who has no business decrying war inside a party committed to the special role war plays in the global economy and the nation’s endemic and narcissistic admiration of its own power.

The problem is Joe Biden. He appeared to be the perfect solution: continuity in his association with a two-time winner (Barack Obama), someone who seems to get along equally well with lobbyists and the working class. What else could the party ask for? Theoretically the ideal candidate, Biden’s lack of substance and tendency to undermine his own avuncular image ended up creating enough doubt among donors that no one could be sure that the funding required to push him through to victory would justify the outlay.

In a last-minute twist, Biden now seems to be reemerging. He cleverly of this crop of Democrats to eschew corporate funding, opening the floodgates to anonymous, self-interested campaign cash. Politico reports: “Calls to a half-dozen maxed-out Biden donors [on October 25] revealed that they would gladly dig deeper for the former vice president and contribute to a super PAC that enables them — and corporations — to give and spend unlimited amounts of money.” The “unease” felt by the wealthy miraculously disappears when the burden is transferred from accountable individuals to the equivalent of a corporate venture managed by oligarchs.

Historical Note

The Democratic Party is clearly split down the middle by two existential issues that have historically been present but successfully papered over by its leadership for the past 80 years. Those issues concern a belief system (capitalism) and empire, or what amounts to a disguised means of centralized control over the national and global economy: the military-industrial complex.

Over his three full terms of office starting in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt saved the faltering US capitalist economy in two complementary strokes. First, he introduced measures boosting the active role of the government in the economy, employing ideas borrowed from the economist John Maynard Keynes. Neoliberals have consistently branded those practices “socialistic,” because they require raising taxes and empowering a central government over the states, but they effectively saved the capitalist system and credo from implosion. Second, Roosevelt belatedly but effectively engaged America in World War II, which transformed the formerly isolationist US into a successful war economy.

The New Deal established the idea that the Democratic Party was committed to social justice and the active promotion of economic equality designed to attenuate the worst effects of liberal capitalism. The success of the World War II economy, which put the US in the position of arbiter of the global capitalist economy, led to the creation and rapid growth of the military-industrial complex, on which both the government and political parties became dependent, though “addicted” might be a more appropriate epithet.

For several decades, Democrats enjoyed their image as the promoters of what in post-war Germany came to be called the “.” It had as its aim “to establish a market economy tempered by social safeguards which are consistent with free market principles,” an idea borrowed from the 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill.

Post-war Europe was built up around this idea, which it still applies everywhere. Almost all Europeans see it as a compromise between capitalism and socialism. But in the US, committed to ideological slogans, no compromise is possible, especially when words are concerned. And so, since Roosevelt, Democrats have accepted the ideology of capitalism and developed a mortal fear of being labeled socialist by Republicans. That explains why Bill Clinton’s found it natural to drift further and further away from the New Deal and into the logic of Milton Friedman’s neo-liberalist capitalist belief system.

In 2015, remembering the tradition inaugurated by Roosevelt, Bernie Sanders dared to counter both the Clintonite drift and Hillary Clinton’s candidacy by proudly embracing the idea of “democratic socialism.” He proposed a means of escape from the capitalist belief system that resonated particularly with the young. The powerful emotional charge attached to the words “capitalism” and “socialism” in US discourse meant that, even with partial success, Sanders had created a deep rift in the party’s culture.

Tulsi Gabbard has attacked the party’s unity on the other issue: war. That is far more delicate because of the economy’s addiction to war. Every reasonable Democrat — including Sanders and Warren — understands how deeply embedded the military mindset is in the US economy and culture. Empires always focus on defense and defense always takes place in other people’s territories. Pulling back is not an option. But the trauma of George W. Bush’s never-ending wars has alienated a significant proportion of especially young Democratic voters (and much of the Vietnam generation) to the point of splitting the party into a pro-war and pro-security state establishment on one side and a rebellious generation sensitive to the high and persistent cost of war and focused on saving the world from the climate disaster that may also undo empire.

The establishment and its donors clamor for party unity, as if the only point of democracy is to allow one party or the other to rule for a given time. That unity no longer exists and it should be apparent that there is little hope of finding it again.

That, more than the quality of the candidates, should explain the donors’ unease. 

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post The NY Times Feels Democratic Donors’ Unease appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

The US presidential election is nearly a year and a half away, which of course means the campaign has already started. Most of the media have profited significantly from Donald Trump’s presidency thanks to the reality-TV star’s ability to create startling news and eye-grabbing tweets on a regular basis.

In reaction to a provocateur, the media, according to their political predispositions, had a choice about how to handle the windfall: cheer Trump’s chutzpah (Fox News) or play the role of shocked observer and critic of his abuse of power (CNN, MSNBC and other networks). Although President Trump is good for their nightly ratings, most of the corporate media sincerely regretted The Donald’s election due to their preference for economic and political stability. They perceive Trump’s volatility as a real risk to the continuity of the system of which they have become the official voice.

Accordingly the mainstream liberal media, comfortable with their quasi-monopolistic privilege of collectively owning the airwaves and cable slots, have somewhat predictably turned former Vice President Joe Biden’s candidacy into a march toward coronation, much as they did with Hillary Clinton in 2015 and 2016. Having served under the Obama administration, Biden is the only clear brand among the candidates, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, whose use-by date may have expired.

Writing for The Atlantic, Jemele Hill analyzes the and surprisingly sees it as the result of Trump’s maneuvering. “This is perhaps Trump’s most crucial victory yet: successfully persuading Democrats—especially African American voters—not just to lower the bar, but to abandon the idea that inclusion and bold ideas matter more than appeasing the patriarchy.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Lower the bar:

Follow the logic of politics in a modern democracy by reducing all political issues to their lowest common denominator, which generally means evacuating all meaning from those issuesÌę

Contextual note

Hill offers a definition of the lowest common denominator: “The nominee just has to beat Trump.” Rather than seeking to address the very real problems of a nation that looks and feels like a fading empire riddled by social problems that include a pandemic of opioid addiction and a rapid , the Democratic establishment is focusing on the mathematics of voting, as they have consistently done in the recent past.

Trump’s election in 2016 had the effect of dividing the US political spectrum not into two, but ultimately into three political segments from a psychocultural point of view. This poses an existential problem in a democracy that has become accustomed to seeing politics as a choice between two distinct rivals representing — at least superficially — two contrasting visions of the nation and the economy. The main advantage of a binary system is that whoever wins can claim to represent the majority, despite being contradicted by the fact that barely 50% of the population participates in any given election. Moreover, concerning the presidency, the electoral college systems permits the election of a president whose rival received a majority of the popular vote. That has happened twice since the year 2000.

The main drawback of such a permanently binary situation is system sclerosis. It produces a code of conduct for elected officials that has little to do with the spirit of the law, moral principles, a serious political vocation or even patriotic ideals, and everything to do with the pragmatics of getting elected and funding the next campaign. To some, sclerosis seems like stability, especially when they are convinced of the existence of an existential threat, such as terrorism or (astoundingly) Russia. For the Democrats, Biden represents the sclerotic ideal.

The three psychocultural segments that now coexist in a form of mutually suspicious rivalry do not correspond to classic sociological criteria, though generational differences are beginning to play a major role.

The first category could be called “self-satisfied mainstream.” It includes establishment Democrats and Republicans and has appeal across all generations. It prefers not to question any existing institutions andÌęto respect the business and financial hierarchy. It seeks to get on with its life and work while pursuing its favorite distractions, the most prominent of which are still television and sports.

The second segment also cuts across generations but is growing among the young: we can call them “concerned and impatient.” Their impatience stems from their perception that the issues they have taken an interest in — the fate of the planet, inequality and, to some extent, foreign policy — have been systematically neglected by the political class.

The third segment is the hardest to define even though it has always existed. It spans libertarianism, anarchism, white supremacy and various forms of radicalism, including Antifa (deemed to be leftwing), but also includes something totally apolitical: deep narcissism and alienation bordering on autism. It thrives on anti-intellectualism. It has always remained outside of politics and obviously represents no significant political force. But its cultural impact has become significant. We might call them collectively the new nihilists, except that nihilists traditionally focused on actively creating political chaos.

The first segment will vote for a Joe Biden or a Jeb Bush, even a Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. The second category will line up behind Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. The third segment, even when it doesn’t vote, can help create an atmosphere favorable to a Donald Trump or another outlandish authoritarian leader.

Historical note

The United States has always been culturally disunited. This has created a need for factors that create an illusion of unity. The first is the flag, a symbol of unity that brings with it cultural artifacts such as the national anthem (a song entirely about the flag) and the pledge of allegiance to the flag, which begins every student’s day at school in an act of feudal fealty. The flag also draws into its gravitational sphere the concept of the military, as a community of heroes defending the flag, whose offensive actions against other nations and peoples, however aggressive and historically unjustified, are systematically believed to be defensive. And the military includes the growing surveillance of the intelligence service believed to have the mission of protecting the unity of the nation.

The second political principle is the sclerotic two-party system. For at least a century, it has channeled the chaotic diversity of ideas and opinions into two slightly different but largely compatible directions: toward the Republicans or the Democrats. Unlike other nations with two dominant parties, Americans identify themselves at an existential level as Democrat or Republican. In terms of voter registration, independents constitute the majority, but they too accept the cultural division of society into what they regard as two legitimate “philosophical” categories, which have the unifying merit of excluding all others as illegitimate.

Throughout the 20th century, the binary party system kept the overwhelming majority of the population within the establishment’s stable cultural framework. Trump’s election provided proof that the established majority — including Democrats, Republicans and independents — has been severely weakened as the basis of the nation’s cultural identity. The emergence of the concerned and impatient alongside the new nihilists has radically changed the dynamics of party politics.

George W. Bush (the “war president”) and Barack Obama (promising “hope and change” that never took place) contributed, for contrasting reasons, to the trend that has weakened the traditional parties and undermined the trust people are expected to have in the personalities that proclaim themselves as unifiers. Like Britain today, struggling not to elect but to imagine its next leader, the US, in its sedulous pursuit of the lowest common denominator, has gutted its own political institutions and turned elections into hyperreal theater.

Now, the curtain is drawn and the actors are on the stage. Enjoy the spectacle.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post The Democrats Focus on Electability appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

If you’re a supporter of Donald Trump — or in Brazil or Matteo Salvini in Italy — you probably think that democracy has never been in better health. Recent elections in these countries didn’t just serve to rotate the elite from the conventional parties. Voters went to the polls and elected outsiders who promised to transform their political systems. That demonstrates that the system, that democracy itself, is not rigged in favor of the “deep state” or the Bilderberg global elite — or the plain vanilla leaders of the center left and center right.

Moreover, from the perspective of this populist voter, these outsiders have continued to play by the democratic rules. They are pushing for specific pieces of legislation. They are making all manner of political and judicial appointments. They are trying to nudge the economy one way or another. They are standing up to outside forces who threaten to undermine sovereignty, the bedrock of any democratic system.

Sure, these outsiders might make intemperate statements. They might lie. They might indulge in a bit of demagoguery. But politicians have always sinned in this way. Democracy carries on regardless.

You don’t have to be a supporter of right-wing populists to believe that democracy is in fine fettle. The European Union just held elections to the European Parliament. The turnout was over 50, theÌę.

True, right-wing populistsÌęÌęfrom one-fifth to one-fourth of the chamber, with Marine Le Pen’s party coming out on top in France, Salvini’s Liga taking first place in Italy and Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party winning in the UK. But on the other side of the spectrum, the Greens came in second in Germany andÌęÌęof the European Parliament from 7% to 9%. And for the first time, two pan-European parties ran candidates. The multi-issue progressive Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM 25) receivedÌęÌę(but failed to win any seats).

Or maybe you’re an activist fighting for democracy in an authoritarian state. In some countries, you have reason to celebrate. You just succeeded in forcing out the long-serving leader of long-suffering Sudan. You just booted the old, sick, corrupt head of Algeria. You’ve seen some important steps forward in terms of greater political pluralism in Ethiopia, in Malaysia, in Mexico.

You can cherry-pick such examples and perspectives to build a case that the world is continuing to march, albeit two steps forward and one step back, toward a more democratic future.

But you’d be wrong. Democracy faces a global crisis. And this crisis couldn’t be coming at a worse time.

Democracy’s Fourth Wave

In 1991, political scientist Samuel Huntington published his much-cited book,ÌęThe Third Wave. After a first wave of democratization in the 19th century and a second wave after World War II, Huntington argued, a third wave began to sweep through the world with the overthrow of dictatorship in Portugal in 1974 and leading all the way up to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the fall of apartheid in South Africa.

It was at this time, too, that Francis Fukuyama and others were talking about the inevitable spread of democracy — hand in hand with the market — to every corner of the globe. Democratic politics appeared to be an indispensableÌę. As countries hit a certain economic, social, and technological threshold, a more educated and economically successful population demands greater political participation as a matter of course.

Of course, democracy doesn’t just arrive like a prize when a country achieves a certain level of GDP. Movements of civil society, often assisted by reformers in government, push for free and fair elections, greater government transparency, equal rights for minorities and so on.

Sometimes, too, outside actors play a role — providing trainings or financing for those movements of civil society. Sometimes democratic nations sanction undemocratic governments for their violations of human rights. Sometimes more aggressive actors, like US neoconservatives in the 2000s, push for military intervention in support of a regime change (ostensibly to democracy), as was the case in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

However, the modernization thesis generates too many exceptions to remain credible. Both China and Saudi Arabia function at a high economic level without democracy. Russia and Turkey, both modern countries, have backslid into illiberal states. Of the countries that experienced Arab Spring revolutions in 2011, only Tunisia has managed to maintain a democracy — as civil war overtook Libya, a military coup displaced a democratically-elected government in Egypt, Bashar al-Assad beat back various challenges in Syria, and the Gulf states repressed one mass demonstration after another.

More recently, backed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the military in Sudan is using violence to resist the demands of democracy activists to turn over government to civilian hands. In Algeria, the military hasn’t resorted to violence, but it also hasn’t stepped out of the way.

Move back a few steps to get the bigger picture and the retreat of democracy looks like a global rout. Here, for instance, is Nic Cheeseman’s and Jeffrey Smith’sÌęÌęinÌęForeign Affairs:

“In Tanzania,ÌęPresident John MagufuliÌęhas clamped down on the opposition and censored the media. His Zambian counterpart, President Edgar Lungu, recentlyÌęarrested the main opposition leaderÌęon trumped-up charges of treason and is seeking to extend his stay in power to a third term. This reflects a broader trend. According to Freedom House, a think tank, just 11 percent of the continent isÌępoliticallyÌę“free,”Ìęand the average level of democracy,Ìęunderstood asÌęrespect for political rights and civil liberties, fell in each of the last 14 years.”

Or let’s take a look at Southeast Asia,Ìę:

“Cambodia’s government transformed from an autocratic regime where there was still some (minimal) space for opposition parties into a fully one-party regime. Thailand’s junta continued to repress the population, attempting to control the run-up to elections still planned in February 2019. The Myanmar government continued to stonewall a real investigation into the alleged crimes against humanity in Rakhine State, despite significant international pressure to allow an investigation. And even in Indonesia, one of the freest states in the region, the Jokowi government has given off worrying signs of increasingly authoritarian tendencies.”

Or how about thisÌęÌęfromÌęThe Washington PostÌęlast year (before the Brazilian election):

“Brazil is not the only Latin American country with troubled politics. Democracy has collapsed in Nicaragua and Venezuela and is in serious trouble in countries such as Bolivia and Honduras. In El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, just as in Brazil, criminal organizations rule the poorer parts of many cities, weakening democracy and undermining the rule of law.”

Waves, of course, go both ways. And the fourth democratic tide definitely seems to be going in the wrong direction. The 2019 Freedom House report,Ìę “Democracy in Retreat,” chronicles 13 years of decline. The V-Dem Institute in Sweden, in its Ìęon the state of global democracy, identifies a “third wave of autocratization” affecting 24 countries (including the United States). The Economist Intelligence Unit isÌę, arguing that “the retreat of global democracy ended in 2018.”

But all the threats itemized in the unit’s actual report are a reminder that this optimism stems from the fact that the terrible state of democracy didn’t get demonstrably worse last year. And, the report concludes, the decline must just have paused last year before continuing on its dismal trajectory.

Democracy’s Dial-Up Dilemma

I’veÌęÌęabout how Trump has undermined US democracy with his rhetoric, his appointments, his attacks on the press, his executive actions, his self-serving financial decisions and so on. I’ve connected the attacks on democracy in the United States toÌęÌęin East-Central Europe from the 1990s onward. I’veÌęÌęTrump’s politics to the majoritarian aspirations of Narendra Modi in India, Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia and Vladimir Putin in Russia.

Maybe it’s a positive sign that an outsider won the 2016 presidential elections (putting aside Russian interference for the moment). If Donald Trump can do it, so perhaps can Bernie Sanders or the Green Party. Another politics is indeed possible. But everything else about Trump is profoundly anti-democratic.

Worse, he’s part of a more general trend. Democracy’s troubles do not simply result from generals seizing power (as in Thailand or Egypt), undemocratic rulers consolidating power (like Xi Jinping in China), or illiberal leaders weakening the institutions of democratic governance (like Victor Orban in Hungary, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey or Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines).

In other words, democracy’s discontents are not solely external to democracy itself. There’s a deeper vein of popular dissatisfaction. According toÌę, a majority of people (out of 27 at least formally democratic countries polled) are dissatisfied with democracy. And for good reason. They are disgusted with the corruption of elected leaders. They are unhappy with economic policies that continue to widen the gap between rich and poor. They are fed up with politicians for not responding with sufficient urgency to global problems like climate change or refugees.

Here’s an equally disturbing possibility. Even in the so-called advanced democracies, the political software has become outdated, full of bugs, susceptible to hacking. Put simply, democracy requires a thorough update to deal with the tasks at hand.

So, for instance, democratic institutions have failed to get a handle on the flow of capital, licit and illicit, that forms the circulatory system of the global economy. The corruption outlined in theÌę, theÌę and theÌę, among others, reveal just how weak the checks and balances of democracy have been. Watchdog institutions — media, inter-governmental authorities — have been playing catch up as the financial world devises new instruments to “create” wealth and criminals come up with new scams to steal wealth.

The internet and social media have been hailed as great opportunities for democracy. States can use electronic referenda to encourage greater civic participation. Democracy activists can use Twitter to organize protests at the drop of a hashtag. But the speed of new technologies also establishes certain expectations in the electorate. Citizens expect lightning fast responses from their email, texts, web searches and streaming services. But government seems stuck in the dial-up age. It takes forever to get legislation passed. The lines at social service centers are long and frustrating.

In some cases, the slowness of government response is more than just irritating.

TheÌęÌęby the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that the world has only a dozen years to deal with global warming before it’s too late. All of the patient diplomacy of states leading up to the Paris climate deal, which itself was an insufficient response to the crisis, was then undone by the results of
 American democracy.

It’s no surprise, then, that voters have gravitated toward right-wing politicians who promise fast results and easy solutions, however illusory those might be. In other words, these leaders have the opposite appeal of democracy, which is so often slow and messy. Right-wing populists are disruptive technologies that destroy existing structures. That’s why I’veÌęÌę“disruptors in chief.”

There are no instruction manuals on how to fix hardware and software simultaneously, on how to address climate change at the same time as fixing the political systems that have hitherto failed to tackle the problem. But democracy definitely needs a reboot. Right-wing populists have offered their illiberal fix. Despite the hype, those “solutions” aren’t working, not on climate change, not on refugees, not on trade, not on international disputes with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela.

So, now it’s time for the rest of us to roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Democracy Faces a Global Crisis appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

With the US presidential election “only” 20 months away, the already declared Democratic candidates have begun evoking the key issues. One of those issues can be stated in this way, though neither the candidates themselves nor the media would ever do so: What do I as a candidate have to do to energize black voters, whose lack of motivation with regard to Hillary Clinton gave Donald Trump the 2016 election? One answer to that is to be black, which is what has pushed Kamala Harris and Corey Booker into the race. Julian Castro and even Tulsi Gabbard represent minority ethnicities as well but, for African-American voters, they are no more black than Elizabeth Warren is Cherokee.

The other answer, embraced by Warren, is to promise to do something about the age-old question of reparations for slavery (once known as “”). Harris and Castro have also promised to address the issue.

When pushed by on whether he supported reparations, Bernie Sanders retorted: “What does that mean? What do they mean? I’m not sure anyone is very clear.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Reparations:

An act or gesture intended to make people one has made suffer forget the lasting damage inflicted on them in order to affirm one’s right to continue with impunity to keep and even develop the lasting benefits of that damage

Contextual note

Although a well-schooled politician himself, who knows that it’s important to be affirmative about everything and never admit to the kind of weakness that sends the message, “I’m not sure what this is all about,” Sanders finds it difficult to put the needs of marketing about the duty of lucidity. The media treats not being sure as a form of flip-flopping, a cardinal sin in politics. The Atlantic Black Star it “tip-toeing around” the question. Vox , “This isn’t the first time Sanders has shied away from backing reparations” before adding, lucidly enough: “At the moment, reparations appear to be any policy a candidate is willing to call reparations.” Which sums up exactly what Sanders was saying.

ABC’s Sunny Hostin the hesitating Sanders a simple definition of reparations: money. MSNBC, which has never forgiven Sanders for spoiling the Democratic establishment’s 2016 scenario for a Clinton presidency, safe candidate Julian Castro’s bold commitment to — in the words of commentator Steve Kornacki — Ìę“taking a look at the idea of reparations”. Somewhat disparagingly referring to the popular Sanders as “another candidate,” Kornacki ran the clip of Wolf Blitzer and Sanders that left the impression that Bernie was dodging the question. He noted that Harris “at least
 seemed conceptually open to the idea,” which suggested that Sanders wasn’t.

In another , L. Joy Williams, identified as a black Democratic strategist, complained that she “wasn’t satisfied” with Sanders’ stance because it focused on “disparities,” not worth mentioning apparently because “we already knew that.” Another guest on the same program pointed out that “there can’t be a new Bernie 
 only the old Bernie” who “doesn’t understand 
 intersectionality,” which establishment Democrats see as the key to beating President Trump.

Whether they themselves understand “intersectionality” or whether they even agree on what it means, Democrats clearly expect that voters — at least those who possess an up-to-date dictionary — will respond to it. The real message they have for voters is that an older, white male candidate who doesn’t realize that reparations equal money (echoing Republicans who think money equals speech) should not be taken seriously.

In more prosaic terms, The Guardian that “Sanders is attempting to build a new kind of campaign, one that seeks to address the weaknesses of his 2016 run by expanding his appeal to non-white voters.” It looks at how he intends to do that, which apparently doesn’t include being “conceptually open” to ideas that have no discernible meaning, the tack establishment Democrats prefer.

Historical note

Reflecting on the decline of empires, historian Alfred McCoy us that at the 1885 Berlin Conference on Africa, “the 14 imperial powers (including the United States) present at Berlin 
 justified carving up the entire continent of Africa by proclaiming a self-serving commitment ‘to watch over the preservation of the native tribes and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being.’â¶Ä What this meant was “eight empires subjecting nearly half of humanity to colonial rule premised on racial inferiority.” Has anything really changed, apart from the amount of profit obtained from this subjection, enabling the construction of a global economy designed to perpetuate the pumping of resources from half of humanity?

°ŐŽÇ»ćČčČâ’s racism and the deep inequality it has bred — not just in the US but throughout the world — finds its roots in the economy and a certain approach to government, as Sanders naively appears to believe. The colonial powers simply could not have built their economy and organized their power structure without racism. The economy depends on a certain historical continuity that has grafted a racist view of the world Ìęinto its structural principles.

Many American liberals desperately want to believe that racism was essentially eliminated in two distinct phases, exactly a century apart, and that there is one small task waiting to be accomplished. The emancipation of slaves following the Civil War in 1865 eliminated the fundamental economic justification of racism. But, alas, Jim Crow followed. Lyndon B. Johnson’s Civil Rights Act of 1965 canceled all the remaining local legal barriers associated with Jim Crow, establishing a colorblind ideal of “equal opportunity” as the basis of the new non-racist order.

But some people’s opportunities are easier to convert into success than others. Reparations might fill the gap, even if no one has an idea of what it is and how it would work. What’s important is to avoid suggesting there’s a problem with the system. It’s all about individual initiative. Williams sees a very simple solution: Encourage the black entrepreneurs of small businesses, who will hire black workers. All will be well again.

Establishment Democrats favor reparations in the same way they have favored single payer health care. It’s something to wish for out loud because it resonates with their electorate. It’s even something to boast about, until, that is, they are forced to regret that in the current system it’s unachievable. The one thing one mustn’t do, if they want to please the Democratic Party, is what Bernie Sanders seems to believe is necessary: define what it is you insist on boasting about.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, , in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Reparations Cannot Repair the Irreparable appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” In 1858, Republican senatorial candidate Abraham Lincoln appropriately borrowed the quote from the Gospel of Matthew to describe a nation on the brink of civil war. A century and a half later, the Democrats might want to mull those same thoughts.

Following US President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address last week, Democrats put on display the fundamental division that has been a constant since the election of 2016. We might call it the “war against independence” or even the “uncivil war” of the party against Bernie Sanders, the man who has been saying: I thought Democrats were supposed to be defending the average citizen against dominant moneyed interests.

The controversy turned around the fact that the Democrats had appointed Stacey Abrams, a black woman, to rebut President Trump’s State of the Union speech. Sanders, a white man, announced that he would also offer a commentary via Facebook Live.

Vox , describing it as “a powder keg” as strident Democratic voices from Joan Walsh and former CNN commentator Marc Lamon Hill to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes reproached Sanders with stealing a black female’s thunder. Hayes : “The Sanders response is *after* the official Democratic response delivered by @staceyabrams, but still a lot of reasons this will grate/alienate.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:Ìę

Alienate:

Upset people who matter in the world of party politics, a crime punishable by moral obloquy, if not potentially exclusion

Contextual note

For establishment Democrats, Bernie Sanders committed the crime of challenging Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries and thereby contributing to her loss against Donald Trump. The Democrats have become hypersensitive about the party brand. Inspired by demographic trends, they had built their entire strategy around the theme of appealing to the abused rights of oppressed minorities, rather than a critique of an oligarchic system controlled by moneyed interests. The white male Sanders had no business opposing Clinton, an oppressed woman. Sanders therefore had even less business complementing — and complimenting — a black woman.

Stacey Abrams has become a positive symbol. She fought a valiant losing battle in the shameful, highly-manipulated gubernatorial race in Georgia in 2018 and earned her place in the headlines. The Democrats artfully chose Abrams to do the official rebuttal of President Trump’s State of the Union. Her response to Trump was a Barack Obama-style oration in the great American tradition of celebrating courageous individuals who beat the odds and overcame adversity. Sanders, on the other hand, highlighted specific claims Trump had made in his speech and offered some economic analysis, giving an indication of what kinds of changes would be required to move forward.

But Sanders, the proclaimed socialist, isn’t the only target to provoke establishment Democrats’ indignation. NBC recently opened a frontal attack on Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who supported Sanders in 2016 and, as a military veteran having served two tours in Iraq, has taken a strong stance against the disastrous Bush-Obama-Trump wars focused on regime change, as well as brewing in Venezuela that establishment Democrats .

In January, Gabbard joined the presidential race as a progressive anti-war candidate. This immediately made her the target of odious smears linking her to the Democrats’ source of all evil: Vladimir Putin’s Russia. On February 3, two days before the State of the Union, Glenn Greenwald exposed the McCarthyist campaign against Gabbard in all its sordid details as the epitome of fake news. Near the end of his exposĂ©, he wrote:

“That’s because the playbook used by the axis of the Democratic Party, NBC, MSNBC, neocons, and the intelligence community has been, is, and will continue to be a very simple one: to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party — whether on the left or the right — as a stooge or asset of the Kremlin (a key target will undoubtedly be, and indeed already is, Bernie Sanders).”

Personalities who call into question the prevailing economic system or the imperialistic military policy of every administration — Republican and Democrat — are clearly not welcome in the Democratic Party and will not be treated kindly by its media.

Historical note

Ever since the traumatic presidential campaign of 2016, when Sanders challenged what everyone expected to be Clinton’s unimpeded march to the nomination by the Democratic convention and victory in November, the Democratic Party has hesitated about whom to blame for Clinton’s defeat by Trump.

Sanders immediately rallied to support Clinton at the convention. That should have removed suspicion about his role in her eventual defeat. But refusing to following the Democratic script for the 2016 primaries branded Bernie with a : an “A” for anti-establishment. However, Sanders proved to be a popular figure with a broad segment of the population.

Accordingly, the Democrats directed their accusation toward a different culprit: Russian hacking of social media, not of the election , despite persistent claims. “Russia didn’t hack the election, it hacked the voters,” and there’s no way of telling whether Russian fake news had a direct effect on the votes.

As Greenwald notes, Russian stooges can be found everywhere, even when nothing happens. MSNBC’s popular host Rachel Maddow has built her reputation around raising fears that Russia is taking over control of the US, as illustrated in one of her most recent , where you can watch her incite the citizens of Fargo, North Dakota, to imagine that Russia is about to turn off their electricity at the very moment when the polar vortex has dropped temperatures to Antarctic levels. What better proof of Russian malevolence — even though the scenario is totally imaginary.

That’s something even the Coen brothers hadn’t thought of when they shot their iconic movie, Fargo.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, , in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post The Democrats Are in a State of Disunion appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Ryan Lochte is to Michael Phelps in swimming what Hillary Clinton is to Donald Trump in polarizing Americans.ÌęNo major party nominee save for Trump has had such strong negative opinions since opinion polling began.

While the cause for voters’ distaste for the Republican nominee is clear, the strong degree of displeasure with Secretary Clinton seems more elusive. Other candidates have committed blunders, been mired in scandal, held lengthy tenures, lied and changed views for political expediency, but rarely has an American politician been so reviled by so many, even within her own party.ÌęWhat is so different for Hillary Clinton?

First, the usual suspects: the Benghazi incident, regardless of her level of involvement, recklessness in using her email server, voting for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, achieving power because of her husband—disregarding her own accomplishments—and staying with her husband, for which she has been accused of everything from Machiavellian calculus to anti-feminism to Stockholm syndrome. There are the and the , her biased judgment favoring rich donors, the accusations that she is either too liberal or too conservative, her being a woman and, finally, that she has been in politics too long and it is time for a change.

Perceived Inevitability

Each reason may put off some voters, and taken together they partly explain the polarization on display in the polls, but this is not the whole story. Many of these criticisms are not new and as recently as 2013 her approval rating was 67% and her negatives were as low as 26%—comparable to Barack Obama’s in 2008, according to .

There is one cause the media has largely ignored: her perceived inevitability in 2016.ÌęThe early decision by party leaders to rally behind a candidate long before the first vote was cast in the Iowa caucus has made voters see her as chosen not by them, but by Ă©lites in smoke-filled rooms.

Frustrated leftists tried to rally around Bernie Sanders, an independent who surprised with his performance but never rose beyond a minority protest against the organized and disciplined Clinton campaign, even after a nigh-miraculous upset in the Michigan primary.

Centrist Democrats who would have preferred a more conservative choice also felt excluded from the process.ÌęConsider one demographic supporting Sanders: poor whites, including lifelong Democrats, in the heart of coal country felt betrayed by the Obama administration’s aggressive approach to environmental regulation and saw Clinton as a continuation of his current policies, and thus voted for a left-wing candidate they might otherwise have never considered.

Obama 2.0

First, internal party conflict and then a “” of 17 Republican candidates allowing the rise of Trump have left many conservative Democrats and swing-voters without a viable alternative, choosing the lesser of two undesirables. A less divisive Republican nominee or a stronger opponent in the primaries would have made more Americans think of her as their choice rather than the establishment’s next-in-line.ÌęWould people be as anti-Hillary had she beaten Joe Biden in the primaries and been leading Bobby Jindal in the general election?

Add Obama’s popularity and anyone unhappy about electing Obama 2.0 can easily feel disenfranchised, particularly after Senator Sanders struggled to implicitly criticize the Obama administration and the Republican Party failed to rally around an alternative.ÌęIn a world of Yelp reviews, reality-TV voting and instant social media feedback, voters have come to expect a feeling of empowerment. Factor in the echo-chamber effect of the blogosphere and Google and Facebook algorithms, and a Republican or a Sanders supporter may wonder how anyone could vote for Hillary at all.

Democracy is now more than ever about a feeling of empowerment, and many voters who think of her as an heir who has not earned their votes will fear she is not beholden to them, but to other identity groups, donors or party Ă©lites.

51łÔčÏ provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

Anti-Hillary is not only about Hillary or her policies: They may well be good reasons, but not the primary ones.ÌęIt is about the system she represents.ÌęWhile she will probably be the next president, if the perception Trump is promoting of conniving insiders subverting democratic institutions takes root and dominates political discourse, she will enter office with little political capital.

As a result, America will only become more splintered among political, regional and ethnic factions. In an era when the US is more polarized than ever, the risk of paralyzed institutions and a weaker republic after the election is a real one.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:Ìę

The post Why is Hillary Clinton So Unpopular? appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

For all the hand-wringing over the US presidential candidates, for all the from whence rose the “Trump Monster,” for all the reminiscing for the Democratic primary’s more-substance filled days, insight is here. Yet it comes by examining the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders—aka the anti-Trump—in which he advocated for love and compassion to be etched into American policies. The American public did want to see his etchings, and they made him competitive throughout the presidential primaries.

Ultimately, Sanders was crushed by the establishment, a term mocked by Hillary Clinton’s supporters during the primary, who were known to be deeply committed to her advocacy. Thomas Frank’s new contribution inÌę±áČč°ù±è±đ°ù’sÌęMagazine and a review of this author’s previous articles provide a useful look into an important chapter of American progressive history, upon which the US must understand, correct and build.

THOMAS FRANK ON THE WASHINGTON POST’S EXTERMINATION

Frank’s blisteringÌę±áČč°ù±è±đ°ù’s article, “,” looks at the January to May 2016 coverage of Sanders in TheÌęWashington Post, a publication “that defines the limits of the permissible in the capital city.” Frank is already famous for his groundbreaking work describing tectonic ÌępoliticalÌę. This article is more than up to par.

Frank’s fascinating look includes all articles, op-eds and blog posts of this period. By and large, they heap scorn on Sanders. Opinion articles were five times more likely to be negative—versus an even balance for Clinton—as part of nearly continual, varied attacks.

Why? Sanders was an affront to the “professional class worldview”—something Frank documented extensively in ?

“Sanders may refer to himself as a progressive,” Frank writes, “but to the affluent white-collar class, what he represented was atavism, a regression to a time when demagogues in rumpled jackets pandered to vulgar public prejudices against banks and capitalists and foreign factory owners.”

Thus, Bernie was greeted with an unending stream of negative coverage. Early on, they dismissed him for not planning social security cuts or debt reduction. (Ìęfor this ludicrous inside-the-beltway thinking). Later headlines include, “Nominating Sanders Would be Insane” and “A Campaign Full of Fiction” as The Post “hit every possible sort of anti-Sanders note, from the driest kind of math-based policy reproach to the lowest sort of nerd-shaming.” Sanders was even criticized for disparaging the Wall Street bailouts, TARP and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). They also objected to his putting down of President Barack Obama.

“What the Post is saying is that the American system, by its nature, doesn’t permit a president to achieve anything more than ‘incremental change,’” writes Frank of the newspaper’s mentality. “Obama did the best he could under the system 
 therefore he should be exempt from criticism at the hands of Democrats.”

As for the popular bold reforms that were championed by Sanders? Irrelevant! “Certain ideas, when voiced by certain peopleÌę
 are inadmissible. The ideas themselves might seem healthy, they might have a long and distinguished history, they might be commonplace in other lands. Nevertheless when voiced by the people in question, they become damaging.” And thus, Frank describes, “the machinery by which the boundaries of the Washington consensus are enforced.”

“Knee jerk incrementalism is a nifty substitute for actually thinking difficult issues through,” he writes. “Bernie Sanders ran for presidency by proposing reforms that prestigious commentators … found distasteful. Rather than grapple with his ideas, they simply blew the whistle and declared them out of bounds.”

Frank ends with questioning why often lowly paid journalists would choose to align themselves with policymakers instead of promoting key ideas—like college tuition and affordable health care—that might one day benefit them.

MEDIA COVERAGE OF BERNIE SANDERS

So too is it worth reviewing this author’s coverage of the election, largely borne out and expanded by WikiLeaks.

In “,” the author called out the biased coverage:Ìę,Ìęwith a similar number for Clinton, versus just 10 forÌęÌęon ABC, CBS and NBC news programs. This came despite Trump and Sanders’ often polling similar results.

51łÔčÏ provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

“Bernie’s alternate and compelling ‘political leadership’ has drawn overflow crowds, record donors and heavy millennia support,” this author wrote at 51łÔčÏ. “Yet a message that could trump the Trump is virtually muted by for-profit media 
 and that has shaped our national descent into hate- and violence-filled debate.”

The three factors behind “,” which were documented by 51łÔčÏ’s in a recent talk at Google—narrow and technocratic elites being removed from the working class; the rise of income, wealth and educational inequality with falling social mobility; and the failure of collective identity—also helped lift up a progressive with inclusive humanist policies. And, thus, Bernie could have served as the counterpoint to Trump through to November 8.

Yet in 2016, the mainstream media tilted the playing field to scary angles. As this author documented in “,” famed media critic Robert McChesney ‘the greatest story [a journalist]Ìęcould ever possibly ever cover”Ìęas being reported on “by the mainstream corporate media ‘through the eyes of the Clinton campaign.’â¶Ä

Mainstream media failed to fact-check misleading debate statements that allowed them to call Clinton’s first debate a win, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Press releases by the Clinton campaign were issued only to be grabbed by news outlets to distract from popular Sanders policy ideas or Clinton campaign blunders.

Americans heard near-constant allegations of sexism—though Hillary’s establishment power far outweighed individual sexism, and she was far from a feminist candidate as this author wrote inÌę.

Attacks on Sanders’ social media were linked to Clinton supporters; calls for him to drop out echoed across the Hillary-friendly media; and Bernie’s leadership was virtually ignored as highlightedÌę.

Perhaps most egregiously was the bait-and-switch used on voters for superdelegates, who aligned with Clinton before the primaries started because of what the American public were told was “winnability.”

This author, in , and others made the case that Sanders was more likely to win: he polled better against Trump; suffered from highly questionable election results; drew more crossover votes; and had a better record. So, then, Americans were absurdly told that superdelegates’ votes needed to reflect the popular vote.

Heavy media bias is painstakingly examined in Frank’s analysis.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE PRIMARIES

Of course, Americans now know that the Democratic Party was in Clinton’s corner too. The hugely biased 2008 Clinton campaign co-chair and Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz stepped down after disclosures by WikiLeaks, which conclusively showedÌęÌęby the DNC and outright bias.

InÌę,Ìęthis author described the DNC’s “money laundering”: the rare step of setting up an early political vehicle for Clinton, which collected up to $330,000 from a person; sending it to states; then getting 99% of it back to try scare small donors.

The presidential primary debates were at inconvenient times and limited. And President Obama was clearly in Clinton’s court, and his unwillingness to attack corporate malfeasance from the bully pulpit for eight years shaped Americans’ vision of the possible.

While the feel-good Democratic National Convention is largely out of bounds of this article, it painstakingly undermined key gains of Bernie’s candidacy, including his serious misgivings around American intervention and wars—with it now being clearÌęthat —and his strong advocacy for climate change and the environment. This author documented these inÌę. While the Democrats chose to highlight inclusiveness, today there seems to be a clouded illusion.

OTHER INSTITUTIONS

Finally, it’s important to note that this took place in an era where major American institutions are largely funded by and serve the interests of elites, as Chris Hedges has written about eloquently and thoroughly in . This author publishedÌę.

Colleges—hundreds that are funded by the Koch Brothers and many whose boards are dominated by financiers or corporate executives—have abandoned much of their research and teaching on human rights, labor rights, environmental sustainability and climate sustainability. (This in addition to not ÌęlivingÌę,Ìęand spending just a few percent of the massiveÌę.)

Think tanks accept major foreign government and corporate donations, . As a result, they are largely unwilling to take on corporate power by framing issues as the power struggles that they are, at the scope on which they exist, or as lapses in core values.

Establishment nonprofits often have weak messaging and strong establishment ties. Those that might have thought to be neutral—were they voting based on record—strangely endorsed and worked with Clinton, and movements (and the media) who were doing their job were dismissed as “” or described as needing to “.”

Many, including the founder, CEO and editor-in-chief of 51łÔčÏ, have asserted thatÌęÌęand, despite massive imperfections and issues, deserves to be elected president.

But as recently departed author and activist Tom Hayden said: “[T]heÌęÌę
 Each generation has to wrestle with the history of what came before, and ask: Whose interest does this history serve? How does it advance a legacy of social movements? How does it deny that legacy?”

It is a mistake to brush off a presidential primary with huge significance. One where the popular and populist candidate was crushed by so-called democratic institutions, one that seems to presage the death of America’s dreams for the future—should the struggle for accountability and democracy not continue.

To refuse to revisit the past is to settle for the expansion of empire, inequality and suffering.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post This is How the Anti-Trump Was Destroyed appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Next November Democrats, Republicans and independents will collectively decide which of two undesirable, seriously flawed candidates will be the next president of the United States. None of these three groups is happy with the binary choice that has been offered them. July has seen the Republicans nominate a candidate who many consider not to be a true Republican. This left the Democrats freeÌęto finalize their choice of a preselected candidate who, as a pillar of the establishment, happens to appeal to mainstream Republicans.

The insurgentÌęwave of the Democratic Party—led with stunning results throughout the primaries by Bernie Sanders—could paradoxically be better described as the old wave or even the “true Democrats.” Unlike the New Democrats of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, the Sanders insurgents’Ìępolicies are modeled on Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Old and new seem to have switched meanings. But now with Sanders officially backing Clinton, hisÌęsupporters feel that they have been left in the lurch, betrayed by both their prophet and the party apparatus itself.

After two weeks of the glitz and pseudo-drama of the twoÌęparty conventions, the suspense is over as we await the final showdown that will, according to ritual, allow voters to choose between two contrasting personalities. But this year in particular we need to be reminded that it isn’t that simple. In reality no one will actually be voting for Clinton or Trump.

OnÌęNovember 8, eligible citizens Ìęin 50 states and the District of Columbia will vote not for a presidential candidate but for a slate of electors who, several weeks later, will cast their state’s votes for one or the other of the candidates. In all but two cases the totality of each state’s votes will automatically go to the winning candidate. These slates of super-electors who mysteriously pool the results of their states are collectively referred toÌęasÌętheÌęelectoral college.

A Historical Relic

When the electoral college was created, the official name of the nation, “the United States of America” was a plural noun. Before the Civil War—which changed the very identity of the nation and turned it politically into an indivisible union—you would say, for example, “the United States have declared war,” whereas after 1865 it became “the United States has declared war.”

The nation was originally a system of federal representation grouping the autonomous political entities called states. The wordÌęstateÌęhad a meaning at the time very similar to that ofÌęnation. Think of Louis XIV’s “l’état, c’est moi” (something Donald Trump, once elected, might be tempted to say, if he spoke French). The president’s role was toÌępreside, to work alongside Congress—representing each of the states—so as to ensure a minimum of coordination around common goals among these autonomous entities.

George W. Bush was credited in the initial count with 537 votes out of a total of nearly 6,000,000 votes. He led and won the presidency by a whopping .00009% in Florida alone.

This conception of executive responsibilityÌęcontrasts radically with what presidents do today. When the states were the essential political reality, there was no standing army. ThisÌęincidentally was a key reason behind theÌędrafting of the Second Amendment, which formally acknowledged the need for state militias. That is why the president was called the “commander in chief” because in case of a national military campaign he would be the unique authority over the disparate militias provided by the states.

In other words, AmericansÌętoday live in a very different world. The nationÌęis no longer a federation of autonomous states. Yet we still rely on an antiquated electoral system devised for the purpose of selecting a leader whose job was to coordinate a number of states rather than to run the country. Any objective political analyst today must recognize that if the electoral college continues to exist, it is due to a combination of natural inertia and a typically American secular faith in the infused “wisdom of the Constitution,” considered by some as a religious relic.

Changing the electoral college’s status or abolishing it would, in any case, require a constitutional amendment, though Rhode Island’s governor, Lincoln Chafee recently initiated aÌęÌęto have the states voluntarily adhere to an automatic alignment of their electoral votes on the national popular vote. Unfortunately, it failed due to lack of support from a requisite number of states.

Embarrassing Futility of Reform

The fiasco of the 2000 presidential election raised serious questions about a system that allowed the candidate with the most popular votes to lose after a particularly messy battle through the courts. At the time I suggested a simpler idea that would have avoided the six-week drama of the hanging chads and butterfly ballots, to say nothing of the injustice of leaving the decision up to nineÌęjustices.

George W. Bush was credited in the initial count with 537 votes out of a total of nearly 6,000,000 votes. He led and won the presidency by a whopping .00009% in Florida alone. The simple reform I imagined would have providedÌęthat when the difference between the two leading candidates was less than 0.01% (or some other negligibleÌęamount), the number of electoral votes should be evenly divided between the candidates. In case of an odd number of electoral votesÌęfor the state, the extra vote would go to the one initially declared the winner.

Call it the justice of Solomon,ÌęwithÌęno risk of a mother losing her legitimate child. In 2000 this would have made Al Gore president instead of Bush, thanks toÌęa significant margin in both the popular and electoral vote. History and historical inertia decided otherwise. Whether such a simple reform would require a constitutional amendment or not I leave to the lawyers to work out. I still think it’s worth a try.

It’s obvious that a rational reform of this type, in spite of the fact that it respectfully avoids the existential trauma of calling into question the electoral college, would never be seriously considered. It’s too simple and rational. I noticed that it isn’t in the otherwise exhaustive list of possible reforms of the electoral college proposed byÌę. The reality is that for some time to come the electoral college will continue to be the method for electing US presidents.

This will be depressing news for the kind of third party movements thatÌęappear to be emerging as the two traditional parties courtÌęimplosion. For a minority party, the only hope of scoring a respectable number ofÌęelectoral votes and having an impact on both politicians and the media, would be to win a state, an impossibility in the face of the current party duopoly. The result is that third parties are routinely ignored and marginalized.

Hobson’s Choice?

But things need not seem so bleak. The nature of this year’s insurgency that has clearly destabilized both major parties presents a different opportunity, in particular for the Bernie Sanders loyalists. Many of them are now making their decision to follow his instructions and support Hillary Clinton in order to bar Trump’s march to the White House. But they feel enormously frustrated at having lost not only the contest but also their voice, that of the man himself.

As a newly converted loyal insider who has made his mark in the shouting match of the primaries, Sanders may indeed be able to influence a future Clinton administration’s policies. That at least is the ray of hope that’s the movement can cling toÌętoday. It is a tenuous hope at best, since the strategy Clinton is most likely to adopt appears to be that of a center-right appeal to Republicans revolted by Trump.

Bernie loyalists in safe states will be free to defy the traditional two-party logic, with no risk to the final outcome. They can support a candidate and a party that represents their insurgent ideals.

Prominent Bernie supporters have begun the delicate balancing act of pleading for the movement to continue and develop while at the same time urging progressives to vote for Hillary Clinton. Robert Reich summed it up in a debate this week with Chris Hedges onÌę.

And right now, given our two-party, winner-take-all system with regard to the electoral college, it’s just too much of a risk to go and to say, I’m not going to vote for the lesser of two evils. Your conscience needs to be aware that if you do not support Hillary Clinton, you are increasing the odds of a true, clear and present danger to the United States.

For many of Bernie’s followers this is a hard pill to swallow. For Hedges, it is time to draw a line in the sand, take a stand by voting for a third party and assume the risk of having Trump instead of Clinton in the White House. He claims that there will be little difference between them since they are only likely to be figureheads at best, with different blond hairstyles.

Game the System

But there may be a way forward that respects both sides in this debate. And the beauty of it is that it uses the very flaws of the electoral college system to achieve its aim.

Numerous commentators have pointed out that an entrenched two-party system combined with the antiquated process of the electoral college have skewed the meaning of universal suffrage. The electoral map, divided into red and blue, splits along another fault line: safe states vs. swing states. Safe states are ones that can be counted on to vote either blue (Democrat) or red (Republican). Swing states or battleground states can go either way and have enough electoral votes to influence the outcome of a close election.

Because the parties and candidates are aware of this, they focus all their attention on swing states to the point of neglecting the safe states.ÌęÌęvaries from year to year according to the polls. Typically, Florida—which decided the 2000 race—Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Virginia are on the list. This is where a strategy emerges for Bernie Democrats looking to keep the movement alive while at the same time preventing Trump from winning. The solution is glaringly simple.

Progressives who vote in swing states will be in a position to influence the outcome of the election. Their vote for Hillary will be an effective vote against Trump. They can put their revolutionary fervor on hold, follow Bernie’s advice and help Clinton keep Trump at bay. In contrast, the Bernie loyalists in safe states will be free to defy the traditional two-party logic, with no risk to the final outcome. They can support a candidate and a party that represents their insurgent ideals. This would most likely be Jill Stein of the Green Party, who offered to run with Sanders at the head of her ticket. These voters would literally beÌęplaying it safe. If they were organized, that couldÌęeven become their slogan.

A Safe Way to Swing

Why would progressives do this? By boosting the overall popular vote of the Green Party they would be able to demonstrate the growing force of their movement. It would also be a wake-up call for the Democratic Party, whose leaders may appreciate, after analyzing the statistics the media will gratefully supply, that, had they been free to vote their conscience, many of those who helped Clinton to victory in the swing states would have preferred Sanders or a candidate clearly less establishment than Clinton. This would lend the anti-establishment wing of the Democratic Party greater clout in the electoral and legislative battles to come.

If this strategy were sufficiently publicized, it could also boost the critical poll numbers for Jill Stein—numbers that determine eligibility to participate in the presidential debates. To get a podium at the debate, so-calledÌęÌę(neither Democrat nor Republican) are required to poll at 15% of the national electorate.

Of course, the Democrats would frown on seeing a third debater threatening to pull votes away from Clinton, but if the strategy is observed in the swing states, it will have no effect on the outcome of the election. On the other hand, by showing that there is a real threat of a left-wing challenge to the turgid establishment in future elections it will contribute to a serious redefinition of the political culture of the nation, have an effect on the program of the Democratic Party and remodel existing power relationships, in particular, weakening the chances of installing a Clinton Foundation dynasty (especially with Chelsea waiting in the wings).

If in any of the red states, which Trump would naturally win in the head to head with Clinton, it appeared that the combined numbers for Clinton and Stein were greater than Trump’s, the glory of Trump’s victory in those states would be seriously diminished.

The most vocal Bernie supporters are adamant about keeping the movement alive. This would be a way of doing so without Bernie Sanders as their leader, who undoubtedly will remain in the Clinton camp, but especiallyÌęwithout incurring the blame for electing Trump because the strength of their numbers would only appear in safe states. In recent weeks, the Clintonites have been consistently rolling out the mantra, Ralph Nader stole the 2000 election for Bush. He didn’t—but that’s another story.

But there is a further possible advantage, which will please the creative analysts of statistics who populate the media. If in any of the red states, which Trump would naturally win in the head to head with Clinton, it appeared that the combined numbers for Clinton and Stein were greater than Trump’s, the glory of Trump’s victory in those states would be seriously diminished. He would still get the electoral votes but would be seen for what he truly is, a minority candidate with a low popularity rating. This would be an effective way of demonstrating that Trump’s past and possibly future success has depended more on the weakness of his opponents rather than on the quality of his appeal.

This election cycle, which began with the near certainty in most commentators’ minds that we were preparing for a battle between two dynasties—the Bushes and Clintons—has contained a long series of surprises. Who would be astonished to see one more surprising development? For the disappointed followers of Bernie, the game plan for this one is there for the taking.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Feeling the Bern in November Can Change the System appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

The explicit bias against Senator Bernie Sanders among Democratic leaders exposed by WikiLeaks—dubbed DNCLeaks—has confirmed the suspicions of millions of his millennial supporters. The revelations have potential to turn away a generation of voters from party politics—and they may not come back.

While much maligned for inaction, millennials showÌęÌęas previous generations. ToÌę, in “1976, when boomers were between 18 and 30 years old, their turnout rate was 50 percent. In 2008, 51 percent of millennials—ages 18 to 28 at the time—voted.” Throughout the nominating contests leading to the 2016 presidential election,Ìę—this time overwhelmingly voting for Bernie Sanders.

Millennials helped transform Sanders from a long-shot candidate, surrounded by more reporters than supporters in May 2015, to an important force in American politics in July 2016. During the primaries a staggeringÌęÌęsupported Sanders, giving him more youth votes than major party nominees Secretary Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined.

What the Sanders campaign represented to young adults was a beacon of hope that concerns for social and economic justice could be addressed at the highest levels. While Secretary Clinton holds many similar policy views, Ìęthe most respected political figure among millennials, more so than President Barack Obama.

Political Integrity

Among a demographic thatÌęÌęover attributes such as political or business experience, that respect stems from the conviction that Sanders can be trusted to stand by his convictions and his supporters. The candidate’s authenticity attracted millions in the generational cohort to vote in Democratic primaries who may haveÌęÌęuntil the general election to weigh in.

However, throughout the campaign supporters of Senator Sanders complained ofÌęÌęby party officials,Ìę and other fairness concerns—potential violations of DNC bylawsÌęÌęduring primaries and caucuses. Previously dismissed as conspiracy theories, many of these suspicions have been proven true by the revelations ofÌę.

The immediate impact of these leaks seems minor: Hillary Clinton was officially selected as the Democratic nominee for the presidency, which is reasonably estimated to have been the same result had the favoritism revealed in DNCLeaks never occurred. The long-term impact of these actions by Democratic Party officials, however, will be much more important.

The revelations in DNCLeaks may be the straw that broke the camel’s back for an entire generation with respect to party politics. Millennials have come of age in the post-9/11 world, punctuated by the 2008 economic crisis and bridled by the shackles of student debt, lingering social injustice, and stagnating wages under administrations led by both Republicans and Democrats.

The result is thatÌęÌęidentify as politically independent, 44% of whom lean toward Democrats. And while politically active, the demographic is naturally skeptical of political institutions: In 2015, aÌęÌęin government at any level, from the local to the United Nations (UN). Indeed, DNCLeaks is the most recent episode in a list of instances wherein millennials feel long-established institutions belie their goals.

Status Quo Will Prevail

InÌęcontrast, millennials see in Sanders a trustworthy steward who shares a mutual hesitance toward institutions—such as the Democratic Party itself—and a mutual understanding of the systemic problems which plague our country. The marginalization of this almost universally respected figure among millennials by a guilty-until-proven-innocent political institution confirms the disillusionment with the status quo and those who propagate it.

The lesson that former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others have taught millennials is that, despite your best efforts, the political system really isÌęÌęand the status quo will ultimately prevail.

Like the Watergate scandal from decades ago, the 2016 presidential election could prove to be a pivotal moment for an entire generational cohort. The nearly three in four millennials who were made to “feel the Bern” are left with no reason to view political institutions as avenues of change. Had Sanders lost without party behavior that bred suspicion, Democrats could have made critical inroads within the largest and most diverse American generation yet. But with Clinton and TrumpÌęÌęof 60% and 64%, respectively, among 18 to 29 year-olds, the remaining choice yields no attractive option for millennials looking for politicians they trust.

Much is written about the proclivities of millennials, but this much is true: The majority of those who are politically activeÌęare motivated to resist structural unfairness—evidenced by the creation of non-establishment organizations such as #OccupyWallStreet and #BlackLivesMatter. In this election, the DNC has given millennials one more instance to resist.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Have Democrats Sabotaged Opportunity to Court Millennials? appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Returning to the United States in an election year, I am struck by the silence. I have covered four presidential campaigns, starting with 1968; I was with Robert Kennedy when he was shot and I saw his assassin, preparing to kill him. It was a baptism in the American way, along with the salivating violence of the Chicago police at the Democratic Party’s rigged convention. The great counterrevolution had begun.

The first to be assassinated that year, Martin Luther King, had dared link the suffering of African-Americans and the people of Vietnam. When Janis Joplin sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” she spoke perhaps unconsciously for millions of America’s victims in faraway places.

“We lost 58,000 young soldiers in Vietnam, and they died defending your freedom. Now don’t you forget it.” So said a National Parks Service guide as I filmed recently at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. He was addressing a school party of young teenagers in bright orange t-shirts. As if by rote, he inverted the truth about Vietnam into an unchallenged lie.

The millions of Vietnamese who died and were maimed and poisoned and dispossessed by the American invasion have no historical place in young minds, not to mention the estimated 60,000 veterans who took their own lives. A friend of mine, a marine who became a paraplegic in Vietnam, was often asked, “Which side did you fight on?”

A few years ago, I attended a popular exhibition called “The Price of Freedom” at the venerable Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. The lines of ordinary people, mostly children shuffling through a Santa’s grotto of revisionism, were dispensed a variety of lies: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved “a million lives”; Iraq was “liberated [by] air strikes of unprecedented precision.” The theme was unerringly heroic: Only Americans pay the price of freedom.

The 2016 election campaign is remarkable not only for the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, but also for the resilience of an enduring silence about a murderous self-bestowed divinity. A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington’s boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal—Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama.

The breathtaking record of perfidy is so mutated in the public mind, wrote the late Harold Pinter, that it “never happened 
 Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. It didn’t matter.” Pinter expressed a mock admiration for what he called “a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

Obama and Nukes

Take Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all over again. He is “cool.” One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He —truth-tellers—than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.

In 2009, Obama promised to help “” and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.ÌęNo American president has built more than Obama. He is “modernizing” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new “mini” nuclear weapon, whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable.”

James Bradley, the best-selling author ofÌęFlags of Our FathersÌęand son of one of the US marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, said: “[One] great myth we’re seeing play out is that of Obama as some kind of peaceful guy who’s trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. He’s the biggest nuclear warrior there is. He’s committed us to a ruinous course of spending a trillion dollars on more nuclear weapons. Somehow, people live in this fantasy that because he gives vague news conferences and speeches and feel-good photo-ops that somehow that’s attached to actual policy. It isn’t.”

On Obama’s watch, a second cold war is under way. The Russian president is a pantomime villain; the Chinese are not yet back to their sinister pig-tailed caricature—when all Chinese were banned from the United States—but the media warriors are working on it.

No Change

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders has mentioned any of this. There is no risk and no danger for the US and all of us. For them, the since World War II has not happened. On May 11, Romania went “live” with a NATO “missile defense” base that aims its first-strike American missiles at the heart of Russia, the world’s second nuclear power.

In Asia, the Pentagon is sending ships, planes and Special Forces to the Philippines to threaten China. The US already encircles China with hundreds of military bases that curve in an arc up from Australia, to Asia and across to Afghanistan. Obama calls this a “pivot.”

Bernie Sanders, the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from Clinton in his proprietorial view of the world beyond the US.

As a direct consequence, China reportedly has changed its nuclear weapons policy from no-first-use to high alert and put to sea submarines with nuclear weapons. The escalator is quickening.

It was Hillary Clinton who, as secretary of state in 2010, elevated the competing territorial claims for rocks and reef in the South China Sea to an international issue; CNN and BBC hysteria followed; China was building airstrips on the disputed islands. In its mammoth war game in 2015, Operation Talisman Sabre, the US practiced “choking” the Straits of Malacca through which pass most of China’s oil and trade. This was not news.

Clinton declared that America had a “national interest” in these Asian waters. The Philippines and Vietnam were encouraged and bribed to pursue their claims and old enmities against China. In America, people are being primed to see any Chinese defensive position as offensive, and so the ground is laid for rapid escalation. A similar strategy of provocation and propaganda is applied to Russia.

Clinton, the “women’s candidate,” leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan leader) and Ukraine. The latter is now a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine—literally, borderland—that Adolf Hitler’s Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton’s presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world’s 10 biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close.

Bernie Sanders, the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from Clinton in his proprietorial view of the world beyond the US. He backed President Bill Clinton’s illegal bombing of Serbia. He supports Obama’s terrorism by drone, the provocation of Russia and the return of Special Forces (death squads) to Iraq. He has nothing to say on the drumbeat of threats to China and the accelerating risk of nuclear war. He agrees that Edward Snowden should stand trial and he calls Hugo Chavez—like him, a social democrat—“a dead communist dictator.” He promises to support Clinton if she is nominated.

The Media

The election of Trump or Clinton is the old illusion of choice that is no choice: two sides of the same coin. In scapegoating minorities and promising to “make America great again,” Trump is a far right-wing domestic populist; yet the danger of Clinton may be more lethal for the world.

“,” said Stephen Cohen, emeritus professor of Russian History at Princeton and NYU, one of the few Russia experts in the US to speak out about the risk of war.

In a radio broadcast, Cohen referred to critical questions Trump alone had raised. Among them: Why is the United States “everywhere on the globe”? What is NATO’s true mission? Why does the US always pursue regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine? Why does Washington treat Russia and Vladimir Putin as an enemy?

The hysteria in the liberal media over Trump serves an illusion of “free and open debate” and “democracy at work.” His views on immigrants and Muslims are grotesque, yet the deporter-in-chief of vulnerable people from America is not Trump but Obama, whose betrayal of people of color is his legacy: such as the warehousing of a mostly black prison population, now more numerous than Joseph Stalin’s gulag.

This presidential campaign may not be about populism but American liberalism, an ideology that sees itself as modern and, therefore, superior and the one true way. Those on its right wing bear a likeness to 19^thÌęcentury Christian imperialists, with a God-given duty to convert or co-opt or conquer.

In Britain, this is Blairism. The Christian war criminal Tony Blair got away with his secret preparation for the invasion of Iraq largely because the liberal political class and media fell for his “cool Britannia.” In TheÌęGuardian, the applause was deafening; he was called “mystical.” A distraction known as identity politics, imported from the US, rested easily in his care.

History was declared over, class was abolished and gender promoted as feminism; lots of women became New Labour MPs. They voted on the first day of Parliament to cut the benefits of single parents, mostly women, as instructed. A majority voted for an invasion that .

The equivalent in the US are the politically correct warmongers on TheÌęNew York Times,ÌęTheÌęWashington PostÌęand network TV who dominate political debate. I watched a furious debate on CNN about Trump’s infidelities. It was clear, they said, a man like that could not be trusted in the White House. No issues were raised. Nothing on the 80% of Americans whose income has collapsed to 1970s levels. Nothing on the drift to war. The received wisdom seems to be “hold your nose” and vote for Clinton: anyone but Trump. That way, you stop the monster and preserve a system gagging for another war.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Silencing America as it Prepares for War appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Just like in 2008, it’s coming down to the superdelegates. Barack Obama’s win was secured when two-thirds of the superdelegates decided that he would be the better Democratic candidate for president. In order to serve in their envisioned role as an electoral corrective, the superdelegates should give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination.

Obama represented “hope and change” on immigration, climate change and health care. Sanders represents the future of the party through bold foreign and domestic policy positions that have putÌęhimÌęÌęin national polls. His hark back to FDR-style politics—including investment in infrastructure and people—and his flat rejection of the neoliberal and neocon politics practiced by Hillary Clinton have galvanized the electorate. The Vermont senator polls of the against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. His candidacy must represent our future.

So say the Democrats, including a band of fierce loyalists who have fueled his unbelievable rise. Yet, with the political, media and the pledged delegate split is 46% to 54%. So says the young generation who overwhelming supports Bernie. So say the independents comprisingÌęÌęthan either political party, who oppose rampant militarism and unfair trade.

But many superdelegates aren’t listening. Back in November, three monthsÌę, at least 359 of the 712 had already aligned themselves with Clinton, versus just eight forÌęSanders. In October, Clinton’s support was estimated at over 500. The split is now 504 to 40, with the rest undecided. Superdelegates can switch support anytime until the July convention where the nominee will be picked should neither bow out. Yet the mainstream media has included itsÌęsupport in counts of delegates, greatly misrepresenting results (like in ) and implying, for months, that ClintonÌęis close to winning the nomination.

Yes, superdelegates matter that much. At roughly one-third of the votes needed to secure the nomination, they will likely determine the presidential pick. Clinton would need to amass 73% of the remaining pledged delegates for the nomination to be decided without superdelegate support, and Sanders could not win the election without superdelegate support. He would need 70—74% more than Obama in 2008—of superdelegates to support him to clinch the nomination, should he win half the delegates from now on. This is assuming 930 remaining pledged delegates and 714 superdelegates, as per TheÌęNew York Times this week, which implies a winning margin of 2,450 delegates—67 more than the 2,383 often cited.

SUPERDELEGATES, WHO AND WHERE ART THOU?

These VIPs are a relatively recent creation. draws on National Archives files on the Hunt Commission, which created superdelegates in 1982. Before 1970,Ìęparty members chose the candidates, which led to the selection of the pro-Vietnam War candidate Hubert Humphrey, who did not run in any primaries, over anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy, who won the most primaries. This exploded in the now-infamous 1968 protests at the Democratic Convention.

In 1970, the McGovern-Fraser Commission was formed, resulting in new rules that doubled the number of primaries to 35 by 1980. Yet in the interim, Senator George McGovern lost 49 states against Richard Nixon, President Jimmy Carter lost by 10% to Ronald Reagan, and independent affiliation shot up to 42%.

The 2000 Democratic Convention © Shutterstock

Time for another commission, they concluded. The Hunt Commission decided that the solution was to give power to party elites who could “bring to the convention a certain political acumen, a certain political antenna,” according Connecticut State Senator Dick Schneller. They were also attempting to counteract the 1970 reforms that “.” Also, a “concern was that primaries, with their lower turnout rates than general elections, could give undue power to single-issue ‘factions.’ This was a standard complaint at the time (and since) [was] that the Democratic Party was coming under the sway of groups devoted to narrowly focused causes, from gun control and environmentalism to feminism and civil rights.”

The new reforms would make the nominee “more representative of the mainstream of the party,” according to the commission’s chair, North Carolina Governor James Hunt—with the article pointing out that mainstream was potentially code for working-class voters less likely to vote in the primaries.

The rationale seems to be remarkably prescient to Bernie Sanders. First, superdelegates’ “political antenna” should indicate his resonance, since Sanders has run in the primaries despite his populist fundraising, visionary appeal and limited media time (all viewed as serious obstacles).

Second, the “ever-shifting center” of the party is certainly represented by Sanders: Hillary’s rhetoric and positions have consistently shifted toward or flat-out mirrored his.

Third, he’s no single-issue candidate. From war to inequality to banking to campaign finance to environment to trade, Bernie offers a new approach. Hillary—today and previously—has not been associated with a compelling progressive or broad Democratic vision.

Lastly, the “mainstream” of the party (and independents)—especially the working class—do not favor her. Think what you want about Democratic congressmen, party officials and lobbyists who serve as superdelegates, but the case for their intervention is stronger now than it has ever been.

So how are they voting?

Assuming the two candidates were equally competitive and the process fair, superdelegates would be expected to line up with the citizens of the state who elected them. In fact, Clinton implicitly makes this argument when she speaks of winning the popular vote (), in a rerun of 2008.

Yet while pledged delegates—akin to the popular vote—have split 54% to 46% for Hillary, the former secretary of state has a full 72% of those who have voiced support in states that have voted, with another 22% remaining undeclared and 5% supporting Sanders.

What is the effect of this media bias? It’s hard to tell, but it’s easy to imagine a world in which reporting was fair, where Sanders would lead by 10-plus points. Certainly, the media’sÌęheavy coverageÌęgave Trump enormous momentum.

Excluding undeclared superdelegates, the superdelegates have pledged 39% more support on average than their pledged delegate split. So if the popular vote—as represented by a state’s pledged delegates—was split 50-50, that state would have 89% of their declared superdelegates supporting Clinton.

In all but two of the 48 states and territories (Mississippi and Arkansas), there is a bias toward Clinton. In fact, in the 10 states with the most pledged delegates, declared superdelegates average 40% more support for Clinton than the voters wish. Washington superdelegates choose Clinton with a whopping 73% more than the state’s caucus-goers.

Anger over this undemocratic system has led Maine to require superdelegates to vote according to the overall popular vote starting in 2020, and for its Democratic Party to petition the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to eliminate the superdelegate system. The Alaska Democratic Convention has approved a resolution to end superdelegate use. Many petitions seek superdelegate voting representative of state elections.

Clinton is clearly the weaker candidate. So, what gives?

Certainly many have connections within the Clintonian orbit that spans think tanks led by former advisors, links to worldwide business leaders and governments aligned with The Clinton Foundation, and ties to various nonprofits. In fact, the majority of superdelegates are candidates for office. TheÌę, with the average House seat coming in at $1.7 million. The DNC helps with campaigning and fundraising. Run by former Clinton 2008 Co-Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it has made numerous decisions broadly viewed as helping Hillary, while hurting democracy and Sanders. It is doubtful that superdelegates expect it to be neutral in its support for Democratic politicians.

Clinton is also directly a major source of money. She’s cranking up donations from the wealthy and from corporations, and her support may include the (perhaps indirectly) and . Her joint fundraising committee, the Hillary Victory Fund, was said to be raising funds for 33 state parties despite breaking Democratic precedents including: presidential candidates usually entering agreements with state party committeesÌę; taking full advantage of the McCutcheon vs. FEC Supreme Court decision and a later congressional provision toÌę; and accepting money from lobbyists, unlike President Obama.

Clinton often mocks Sanders’ use of the term “establishment.” It’s understandable: These are her funders and allies.

The fund’s practices, described asÌę, sends donations to the state parties and then ,Ìęwhere they could be used to court small donors. ClintonÌęhas of hers versus just 2.3% for Sanders. The Sanders campaign has questioned this practice, and Public Citizen’s Craig Holman called it “offensive” saying “it should be illegal.”

Sanders and Trump have demonstrated the viability of primary campaigns that do not rely on funding by corporations and the wealthy. Thus, Clinton’s practices just seem to underscore a lack of commitment to fixing the top threat to US democracy and the potential for influencing superdelegates.

It is time to hold superdelegates accountable to American voters and to their duty. Come November, many voters will ask the following questions: Should I vote for a Democratic congressional representative? Are we aligned on the big issues (say climate, trade, guns and our support forÌęBernie)? And when it comes to the president, do I want to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” or neither?

As mentioned earlier, the expectation might be that the superdelegates’ votes would mirror their states’ results, were two candidates equally viable and the system fair. But for institutional failures—reflected in a broken media, electoral system failures and think tank mediocrity—Sanders would likely have established a winning margin of at least 10 to 15 points.

Bias for Hillary

The establishment, mainstream corporate media have been strongly pro-Hillary. A study by the Tyndall Report found that media outlets gave Clinton as much coverage as Trump in 2015, whileÌęÌęone-twenty-third of the coverage of either. His numbers have soared when voters learned about him, so the media’s failure to cover Bernie is a major part of the reason he often loses the early vote, yet runsÌę.

© Shutterstock

But there’s more. As the media has run through the steps of Mahatma Gandhi’s famous quote—“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”—Clinton has adopted a sophisticated, unethical media strategy. Hillary and her surrogates () rely on the media promoting her misleading statements, changing the subject at her whim, and highlighting her successes. HerÌęÌęanswers to allow the media to declare it a “win,” which gave her crucial momentum.

Over time, Clinton and her supporters haveÌęÌęBernie’s broad movement-based campaign as being just about the banks and his health care plan as causing millions to lose insurance. She championed a minimum wage hike in New York that she has never supported nationally, after husband Bill Clinton’s series of patronizing statements toward a Black Lives Matter protester. Hillary and her supporters almost continually makeÌę. If the issue at hand doesn’t favor her, a new talking point or a shallow policy announcement is all it takes to change the media focus.

It’s important to note that this bias spans the so-called liberal press,Ìęwith at an unprecedented pace. The New York Times’ columnists who have spent decades trying to overturn oppressive structures make snarky, misleading statements in almost every op-ed about a politician who is advancing their causes.

What is the effect of this media bias? It’s hard to tell, but it’s easy to imagine a world in which reporting was fair, where Sanders would lead by 10-plus points. Certainly, the media’sÌęÌęgave Trump enormous momentum.

This profoundly unethical behavior by the media establishment has been aggravated by that of establishment institutions: colleges, left-leaning think tanks, large nonprofits, the DNC, many Democratic politicians and arts institutions. Together, these institutions have largelyÌę, even as their funding from foreign governments, multinational corporations and hedge fund and private equity managers has skyrocketed.

Clinton often mocks Sanders’ use of the term “establishment.” It’s understandable: These are her funders and allies. And she has been completely in tune with the concerns of those in the Hamptons, at pricey fundraisers and global nonprofit galas. The pain is in the streets and in the stadiums she struggles to fill, while Sanders packs them in like the Stones. She doesn’t repeat an early line in many Sanders’ speeches: “[T]he top 1/10^thÌęof 1 percent have almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent,” or discuss her funders’ role in .

Her campaign of a year ago was built on positions representing the party’s strong rightward, business-friendly shift, reflecting a neoliberal worldview that champions corporate ideals in a subversive way.

addresses The Clinton Foundation, and his —described as the most important book of 2016—addresses the social, political, economic and cultural changes that have allowed everyone from Hillary’s husband Bill Clinton to President Barack Obama to ignore the Democrats’ former working-class constituency.

While there has been a concerted campaign by Clinton indicating she is more electable, this is not necessarily the case. Polling data indicated SandersÌęleadsÌęTrump by 11 points, butÌęClinton wins by just one point, averaging the last six polls.

As per Frank, Democratic politics have become tethered to models of exploitation, insecurity and poverty. Highly touted “innovation” translated to massive deregulation, or the erosion of consumer, worker or environmental rights gained through decades-long fights using models that will lead to us to being day or hour laborers.

Models of the future are ones in which online-banked microentrepreneurs conveniently eradicate poverty, even as corporations run cash-cow operations that atomize and outsource jobs. The world has massive resources, with the top 62 people having as much as the bottom 3.5 billion. Adopting and strengthening many old models and technologies—for food, farming, energy, carbon footprints, labor—would often result in a more equitable distribution of resources. But they threaten profits that could be gained through ever-more-predatory capitalism.

Democrats, especially Hillary, who have been in a hug-it-all-out-with-the-corporations mindset, make Bernie’s campaign feel revelatory and inspirational. The sustained and convoluted brushing aside of our citizens’ harsh realities—even the media offers fluffy, “reality-based” entertainment—make it so. American institutions have failed to think clearly and big, with hopes the population will follow.

Electoral Failures

Large-scale electoral failures and fraud favor Clinton. There are the improbableÌęÌęand Bill Clinton’s potential voter violation felony, which may have prevented Sanders’ fifth Super Tuesday win and a stronger media narrative. , with voters waiting many hours; most provisional ballots were discarded, and registrations were flipped to prevent voting.

© Shutterstock

Weeks later, there was more chaos. In New York, where 125,000 Brooklynites—just miles from Clinton’s Brooklyn office in Sanders’ hometown—were dropped from the voting rolls in one of the few areas Clinton won. There were more flipped registrations and exit polls that differed from polling results in an extremely unlikely manner (with odds ofÌę). TheÌę,Ìęwhich , and in many states. In Nevada, the State Democratic Party Chair Roberta Lange passed “ via a voice vote as delegates were still trickling in.” She also didn’t allow excluded delegates to explain their case and illegally ended the convention.

Of course, even the electoral structure seems unfair—the lockout of independents, the requirement to change parties sometimes very early and the inclusion of parties like theÌęÌęin California.

Deceptive CampaignÌę

Clinton skirts the line so that most statements are deceptive, but not outright lies. Many promote wrong beliefs about her and Sanders’ records. And she knows the media—big donors to her foundation and campaigns—will rarely call her out on it. Some have compared it to —mental abuse by employing twisted and false information.

The slimy strategies have extended to campaign activity and social media: Ìęand phone calls made from Sanders’ phone banks by her supporters; HillaryÌę; and a pro-Clinton SuperPAC ÌęSanders on social media.

Along with her supporters, Hillary plays the gender card: We hear repeatedly of the significance of a woman president, our if—as women—if we don’t support her, and how we don’t get the misogyny.

More relevant is the democracy card. What of the failures of our institutions? What of the heavy exploitation and/or benefit from a corrupt fourth estate; election failures at times tied to Democratic leadership supportive of Clinton; and ignorance of progressive policies, Bernie’s candidacy and Clinton’s record? The superdelegates should take these institutional failures into account.

But even more important are Hillary’s prospects. So far, the election has been remarkably clean. However, once one looks at undercover political realities, it becomes clear that Sanders is a far better candidate. Bernie’s supporters have been told throughout the primary that Ìęfor the general election, which is also consistent with the Hunt Commission. It seems beyond simple that Sanders should receive the superdelegates’ votes.

ThisÌę shows an implicit quid pro quo, with massive exchanges of money and favors and Clinton’s extraordinarily hawkish behavior. Secretary Clinton would be easy to outskirt both on the left and the right, and to exposeÌęfor her lack of integrity and consistency.

One can discard an uncharacteristically bold senator who has beenÌęsidelinedÌęby a rigged system and sophisticated techniques of manipulation. Yet such a tremendously harmful act would aggravate the risk of a Trump presidency.

A poll in March found that 37% describe her asÌę“.” The election, should Clinton win the nomination, is framed as one between two highly unpopular candidates that will descend into a race to be the less terrible candidate.ÌęIt’s not inspiring independents, who comprise an estimated 42% of the electorate. There goes any potential strength in the reliably Republican states of the American South.

Similarly, Democrats likeÌęher less as they getÌęto know her, asÌęthe improbable erasure of her 50-point lead demonstrates. Their affinity for honesty and a commitment to the public interest makes her “evolutions” unsuccessful. Hillary’s revolution from within is little consolation to those who need a tangible revolution. How can it not get worse in the general election, as Trump rejects Sanders’ clean campaigning for viciousÌęattacks?

Losing Democratic Votes

Clinton loses many more Sanders voters than he does: An estimated 20-25% of his supporters have said they would not vote for Clinton versus 3% of her supporters.

Sanders’ supporters are looking for a leader who champions systemic change. Their differences are captured in the common memes with Clinton and John Kasich as the only two candidates to vote for if youÌębelieve “”—with a vote for her for those who believe that “women are people.”

In contrast, Sanders has long been fighting the system. A second meme says: “For every mistake America has made in past 30 years you can go and find a video of Bernie Sanders trying to prevent it.” The videos of Bernie denouncing the Panama free trade agreement, filibustering tax cuts for the rich, deriding the misguided focus of the crime bill and protesting the lack of integrated housing are compelling. Yes, Sanders’ supporters stand for Clinton priorities of equal pay and reproductive rights. But so too do they take a hard stand on militarism, corrupt campaign finance, inequality, health care and other issues.

“I don’t think any Democrat’s ever won saying, ‘We can’t think that big—we ought to really downsize here because it’s not realistic,’” Vice President JoeÌęÌęon April 21. Clinton’s strong focus on “realism” and against Trump is shocking. “Hope and change” may have become more platitude than plan, but tapping into a sense of possibility is key to progressive politics.

Interestingly enough, Clinton has endorsed rapid change when it benefits corporations—for example, on war and trade—even while she urges caution in implementing government programs to help the American population. It’s pragmatism for government and the people, pedal to the metal for corporations. But why should onlyÌę?

Hillary Clinton has sought a more populist tone, even kicking off her campaign on Roosevelt Island. However, she is not the New Dealer’s heir apparent. With her embrace of globalization and strong ties to corporates, she represents the policies that shifted power to corporations and left the vast majority of Americans served by predatory corporations and banks, with little financial cushion. That attitude, and an unconvincing swerve toward Sanders-endorsed policies that would hurt her long-time, significant donors, limits her appeal.

What is in thoseÌęemails? Is it worse than what is in those speeches to Goldman Sachs? How have contributions to the Clinton Foundation affected arms deals, militarism,Ìęclimate and energy policy?

While there has been a concerted campaign by Clinton indicating she is more electable, this is not necessarily the case. Polling data indicated Sanders leadsÌęTrump by 11 points, but , averaging the last six polls. In fact, the shifting of polls recently to show that she actually loses at times seems to be a replay of the start of the Sanders-Clinton primary before her poll numbers plummeted. So too have her coattails shortened. A stronger Sanders performance has potentially .

Every day, people everywhere ask questions about Hillary Clinton that no one should ask about a presidential candidate. Is today the day she’ll get indicted? If she does get indicted, presumably for violating the Espionage Act (ironicallyÌęÌęwith little criticism from her), how will it affect her polling?

What if she’s not indicted, but the material leaks out? What is in thoseÌęemails? Is it worse than what is in those speeches to Goldman Sachs? How have contributions to the Clinton Foundation affected arms deals, militarism,Ìę? Things virtually ignored by Sanders will be fair game in the general election. In fact, his clean campaigning may well be leaving Clinton untested and weaker should she win the nomination.

No Record to Run On

A common meme shows Sanders as having far more political experience. In particular, Clinton’s legislative accomplishments as senator were unimpressive, while “Amendment King” Sanders left a lasting and substantial legislative record—though the story was irrationally changed by The New York Times. Clinton has very little to show for her time as secretary of state (she shies away from Honduras, “Hillary’s War” in Libya, her promotion of fracking abroad, etc.), and as head of the Clinton Foundation. Her new plan to appoint NAFTA-signing, Glass Steagall-repealing husband Bill as some unelected jobs czar is less than inspiring.

The great raft of intellectuals, writers and activists deeply devoted to social justice—largely permanent outsiders uninterested in an administration job—overwhelmingly favor Sanders. Sure, the revolving door types who architected and championed unfettered globalization, free trade and so on favor Clinton. But we now need people of integrity to guide us as we cast off our current predatory models.

© Shutterstock

What do these leaders say—those who shone a spotlight on corruption, warned us of systemic oppression and pointed us in a better direction? The vast majority support Sanders. All have concerns about a Hillary presidency, including The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander; MacArthur Genius GrantÌęwinner Ta-Nehisi Coates; The End of Poverty author Jeffrey Sachs; documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, Chi-Raq director Spike Lee; political dissident Noam Chomsky; actress and activist Rosario Dawson; former State Senator Nina Turner; inequality expert Les Leopold; Professor Cornel West; former NAACP President Ben Jealous; civil rights activist Harry Belafonte; Capital in the 21^stÌęCentury author Tom Piketty; long-time whistleblower Seymour Hersh; What’s the Matter with Kansas? author Tom Frank; and pioneering feminist Bell Hooks. Even the real life inspiration for Wall Street’s Gordon Gekko offers a sound economic critique.

These people who often speak unpleasant truths to power offered us prescient warnings we should have heeded and wise counsel we should have followed. They still offer a strong vision for a just society—one free of racism, militarism, poverty and sexism at the heart of our most important movements.

It would be a mistake to assume while aÌębattle is being waged for the Republican Party, that there is not a fierce fight for the soul of the Democrats. It’s being waged over the party and convention leadership; the means of fundraising; the priorities up and down the ticket; the platform; the behavior that we tolerate; the meaning of democracy and how it applies to politicians and institutions; and the direction of America.

One can choose to cast away a politician embraced by millennials and independents, with fiercely loyal Democratic supporters who has been approved by great thinkers. One can discard an uncharacteristically bold senator who has been sidelinedÌęby a rigged system and sophisticated techniques of manipulation. Yet such a tremendously harmful act would aggravate the risk of a Trump presidency.

The fate of America lies with those who have not yet voted, who remain politically active, and with the superdelegates. Ultimately, it’s the last group’s choice that could prove decisive. They should endorse now to help the Democrats regain the presidency and their leadership role. They should listen to “political antenna,” follow the “ever-shifting center” of the party and electorate, and endorse a broad vision that appealing to the “mainstream.” Such a pragmatic choice would also advance higher human ideals of freedom, truth, peace, justice and opportunity.

It is time to bring the newly-energized electorate to the polls and to see the powerful vision of superdelegates come to fruition.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ìę/ Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Superdelegates Should Support Bernie appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

In spite of Bernie Sanders’ wins in Indiana and West Virginia, Hillary Clinton will almost certainly be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. This being the case, it may seem pointless to write about the media coverage of the election at this late stage. The biases run so deep and so clear that they have become yet another political reality that we simply take for granted. There may be some value, however, in discussing the possible results of this bias in the medium-to-long term, especially from the perspective of the Democratic race. What will it mean for American society in the future? What does it say about American society today?

In order to have this discussion, we should first lay some of the media bias out on the table. In debates, in newspapers and across the broad spectrum of digital media the current presidential primaries have been viewed almost exclusively from a set of deeply-held political biases. These biases appear so widespread that one forgets that they are biases at all. If a politician proposes programs to support education, healthcare, the poor, the young or the elderly, we must ask them how they plan on paying for it. The tone and repetition of these questions underlie the implicit argument that such things are not just expensive, but inherently too expensive. If a candidate plans on cutting taxes or expanding the military there is no need to question how they will pay for it at all.

Money in Politics

On the rare occasion they are in fact asked about the cost of such policies, there is no need to harp on the point. Let the candidate lie and then amiably move on. The Democratic primary has taken this long-established American pattern to new, and even more frustrating, lows by refusing to ask Hillary Clinton how she will pay for any of her proposals, ever (much less how she will get them through Congress). Bernie Sanders sought to pay for free public and state universities by imposing a 0.5% tax on stock trades (mirroring similar taxes in London and Frankfurt). Hillary? Well, she says she has a plan for that.

Fundamentally we should not be too surprised by the fact that the establishment seeks to protect its own. That Hillary Clinton received favorable treatment from media corporations who also contributed large amounts of money to her campaign (like Time Warner) is, again, so obvious it hardly bears repeating. What is worrying, however, is how sharply the American left (depressingly embodied by the Democratic Party) is breaking with anything that might even remotely be construed as “liberal.” It is now the basic dogma of the Democratic Party that money in politics is not a corrupting force. After all, if it cannot corrupt Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (as many now contend), then how can Democrats claim that it corrupts anyone? In just under six years the Democrats have gone from viciously decrying Citizens United to broadly, if unconsciously, supporting it.

The US spends a shocking 17% of its GDP on healthcare and leaves roughly 30 million people with no health insurance at all, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills every single year.

The media tended to stay away from any mention of campaign finance—it was not asked as a direct question in any of the early debates. When they did finally begin mentioning it they framed the questioning from the same perspective as Citizens United: If you cannot prove a clear and immediate quid pro quo then money in politics must not have any corrupting influence. The media has helped normalize a cartoon image of corruption, while neglecting the trend lines in American policy that have been heavily favoring the wealthy since at least 1980. It is the job of writers, those of us who deal with the immortality of the written word, to provide readers with historical perspective. The corporate news media has consistently failed in this regard during the primaries. The healthcare debate provides one small example of this.

Universal Healthcare

Just eight years ago Democrats were fighting over what the precise terms of a universal healthcare system should look like; the argument between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on this regard was a notable feature of their campaign. Today, Democrats and left-leaning columnists have lined up en masse to declare universal healthcare “” or “” (to use the terms favoured by Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman). Many of these columnists had to reverse their own long-stated opinions regarding universal healthcare in order to more effectively attack Sanders and his ideas. Clinton set the stage for this abrupt turn to the right all the way back in January when she boldly announced that universal healthcare will “” at a rally in Des Moines. “No, we can’t,” indeed.

As usual, arguments about universal healthcare (caricatured exclusively as single payer in American debates) center around the cost of such a system. Americans like to believe that having more costs more. There is a certain, simple logic to this line of thinking that is understandably enticing. Unfortunately, the basic facts do not bear it out. As we well know, universal coverage systems on the whole tend to be drastically cheaper than the US system. The UK spends some 9% of GDP on healthcare and manages to cover every man, woman and child from womb to tomb.

The US spends a shocking 17% of its GDP on healthcare and leaves roughly 30 million people with no health insurance at all, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills every single year. Somehow this system is considered “realistic” (perhaps “pragmatic”) whereas cheaper, more efficient and vastly more humane systems that already exist in other developed countries are “puppies and rainbows.” The lack of imagination and independent thought that is required to reach the conclusions offered by otherwise “liberal” outlets is truly staggering. Under normal circumstances one would expect journalists to point out the gross cost of the American system and the substantial savings of moving toward a universal system. As a rule, they have overwhelmingly done the exact opposite during this election.

A Political Revolution

New York, 2011 © Shutterstock

There was a surging hope among the shattered remnants of the American left-wing that the rise of Bernie Sanders may mean a “political revolution” (to use his own term) that would sharply pull the United States back into line with the rest of the developed world. That this turn is not going to happen, at least not anytime soon, is now undeniable. What is truly shocking, however, is the conservative backlash that the movement has engendered in the mainstream Democratic Party. The reversal, already, of Obama’s regulation barring federal lobbyists from donating money to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its preferred candidates is just the beginning.

Without pressure from the left, which will almost certainly wither and recoil when Sanders formally concedes defeat, the “center” will no doubt work tirelessly to aggrandize even more political power into the hands of the wealthy few. The DNC has already engaged in a blunt form of money-laundering in support of Clinton, funneling contributions made to state party organs into the Hillary Victory Fund, thus signaling that they are willing to go out of their way to woo big money.

To the credit of most major news outlets this was widely reported. However, as usual, reporters failed to ask the logical follow-up questions. “Where will this system leave us in 10 or 20 years?” Like so much of American politics, the focus has been so narrowly limited to this one, single election cycle that no one seems to care about the medium-term implications of the decisions being made today. When the mass media—still the most prominent player in setting the “acceptable” parameters politics and policy—fails to look forward, it smothers the voice of us who do.

In this vacuum only those with access can talk about their long-term goals, usually in private (or at least shielded by a static machine). If the rich and powerful get a voice and the rest of us do not, which direction is the nation likely to head in? If we are lucky all of this money entering the system will ensure that our politics delivers more of the same. If we are unlucky, then the march toward oligarchy, a phrase uttered not just by Bernie Sanders but also by the venerable Jimmy Carter, will hasten.

For the millions of Americans who are worried about the collapse of their democracy, evidenced starkly in the , and the new two-tier America of haves and have-nots is there any hope? Maybe.

Perhaps it is best to see the campaign of Bernie Sanders not as a flash in the pan, but as part of a broader movement that first burst onto the national scene during the Occupy Wall Street movement. These many millions are still out there, and are still upset. If they continue to fight, then perhaps Americans will one day receive universal healthcare, maternity leave, paid vacation and better compensation for their labor. Then again, perhaps they won’t. Perhaps America is forever doomed to play the part of Rome to Europe’s Greece.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ÌęÌę/ Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post The Media and the Fate of American Liberalism appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Progressive voters under 30ÌęÌęhelped President Barack Obama take the presidency in 2008. Similarly, throughout this campaign they have beenÌęunquestionably the Ìęof Senator Bernie Sanders—presentlyÌę. But after the recent results in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, the nomination of former Secretary Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for the presidency is now all but inevitable, leaving millions of young progressives disappointed.

However, the future of progressivism cannot be centered abound a particular candidate, and much work remains for those who wish to give our children a more compassionate and just America. The following seven goals are where those who #FeelTheBern can turn to continue the fight.

Vote This November

While the Democratic primary has been more substantive than the other side, a majority of young progressives who support Sanders still feel hesitance toward Clinton. However, she is the closest in policy and priority to Sanders of any other candidate this election. A Clinton victory in November would protect women’s rights, ensure another progressive on the Supreme Court and raise the waters for down-ticket progressive support, such as Congressional candidate and Sanders supporter Zephyr Teachout. Even the most anti-Hillary progressive should consider voting for her come November. The alternative—Donald Trump—is simply too disastrous.

Bottom-Up Governance

It is well-documented that Democrats haveÌęÌęat electing people not named Barak Obama over the pastÌę, allowing the GOP to control the House, Senate, 70% of state legislatures and a majority of governorships. At the federal level, since the 2010 midterm elections, we have seen how difficult making progress can be with a Republican-dominated legislature. And while progressive millennials like to dream nationally, the mechanisms for enforcing many of our policy positions—from universal healthcare (including mental health) to education reform—lie at the state and local level. Perhaps more importantly, state elections are the only place where redistricting and criminal justice reform can occur. If progressives do not think and act locally, we will continue to be politically out-flanked by conservatives for a generation.

Structural Reforms

Before going straight to emotion-laden policy goals like immigration, a woman’s right to free choice when it comes to abortion, and gun control, the new progressive generation needs to focus serious energy on structural improvements to how the game of politics is played. OverturningÌęÌęand the intricacies of primary voting has grabbed our collective attention, but there has been less rage about theÌęÌęand theÌęÌęthat followed it.

Just as important are reforms for judicial elections: While the framers of the US Constitution prohibited elections for the federal bench, states—where over 90% of all cases are heard—have free reign to decide how to select their own judges. Former Ìęand organizations such as theÌęÌęhave spoken out about the influence of seeking reelection has on how judges decide cases.

Criminal Justice

© Shutterstock

The frequent murders of unarmed black men and mass shootings in 2015 have rightfully made criminal justice an important topic for 2016. Common-sense gun control, reforming the training and diversification of police forces and cultural changes at both the national and community level must be achieved if we hope to reduce the instances of similar tragedies in the future.

Further, progressives should push forÌęÌęwhich no longer targetÌę, as well as oppose the expanse of privatized prisons (though Clinton seems to hold aÌęÌęhere). For millennials, moving beyond President Obama should mean opposing the continued expanse ofÌę,Ìęwhich he continued from the Bush administration, as well as theÌęÌęCountering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative.

Social Justice

Movements like #BlackLivesMatter have worked to push social justice to the fore of our national discussion leading up to the 2016 elections. Coming to age during these time have made millennials particularly sensitive to ethnic and racial inequalities. Young progressives of all colors should be allies of communities that have been marginalized, disenfranchised and underserved. While much of this remains cultural change that cannot be legislated, progressives can make policy accomplishments by fighting poverty, rejectingÌę, requiring equal pay for equal work, advancing disability rights and accepting more refugees from war-torn countries. And while the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for gay rights, the “religious freedom” bills—legitimized discrimination—being introduced in state legislatures throughout the country show that work remains undone.

Equal Economic Opportunity

This was the central issue of the Sanders campaign, and it behooves those most effected—those with college debt or little work experience—to continue the fight. To properly address the causes of income inequality, we must look to expanding early education, public school finance reform and college affordability. These achievements will allow future generations of disadvantaged Americans to compete on a more level ground than exists now. For the present workforce, we must continue advocating for more progressive tax structures, increased employee rights, such as paid parental leave, benefits for part-time workers and a living wage for all full-time employees.

Principled Foreign Policy

Lastly, progressives must support policies abroad which are in line with our founding principles of democracy and human rights—yes,Ìę. The United States must lead by example in supporting these ideals while conforming to domestic and international law, in contrast to the cowboy diplomacy of the right. This stance requiresÌęÌęof an efficient Department of Defense, which protects Americans withoutÌę. And those who serve us must be treated with the respect they deserve when they come home, including educational and employment opportunities, mental and physical health services and an expanded Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) program.

These 7 goals can help to frame and structure the energy and passion that millennial progressives have shown in support of Senator Sanders. While his 2016 presidential candidacy has little hope of succeeding, the policy stances Sanders brought to the fore—income inequality, education reform and limited military force—are worthy of carrying beyond 2016 to create a future in which our generation can believe.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ìę/ Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post 7 Goals for Progressive Millennials appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

What is the role of the media? According to Noam Chomsky, an obstinate, cantankerous press is an essential prerequisite for the people’s right to know.

Amy Goodman, of , thinks of the media as a big kitchen table where we sit around and debate the issues of the day. Anything less is a disservice to a democratic society.

The current presidential election coverage in the United States is not only falling short of journalistic standards, but creates a veil of distortion, lies and misrepresentation that obscures reality. By giving too much attention to certain subjects while ignoring others, the media manufactures consent by influencing public perceptions on major issues, like wars, elections and policy.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:  /  

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post How the Media is Running This Election appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

He wants to cut back on US military commitments overseas. He calls the Iraq War “one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of our country.” He promises to make deals with America’s adversaries. He’s comfortable with the »ćĂ©łÙ±đČÔłÙ±đ with Cuba. And he really pisses off the stuffed shirts atÌęThe Washington Post. So, what’s not to like about Donald Trump?

Well, a great deal, of course. The man is an incoherent, misogynistic bully. But his foreign policy vision, a kind of fun-house version of Reaganism, is upsetting Beltway mandarins, shaking up the Republican Party, and pointing to a potential rupture in the informal liberal-conservative consensus on foreign policy that has prevailed in Washington since the end of the Cold War.

It’s hard not to enjoy a frisson ofÌęschadenfreudeÌęwatching Trump tear through the conservative mainstream like Jack the Ripper at a Heritage Foundation tea party.

For all his earlier flirtations with the Democratic Party, the Donald is a product of the same right-wing extremism that has flushed moderates out of the Republican Party, reduced political discourse to a debate over the relative size of bank accounts and genitalia, and revealed “politically incorrect” talk to be naked racism, sexism and xenophobia. Trump is a rogue elephant, and he might just lead the entire herd over the electoral cliff. It’s a drama that’s almost Shakespearian in its combination of low comedy and fratricidal bloodletting.

I was confidentÌęÌęthat Trump could win the Republican primary, because his messages were perfectly tailored to 95% of self-identified Republican primary voters (i.e. conservative white people). I suspected that he wouldn’t crash and burn because the more he pissed off those outside his core demographic, the more his supporters believed that he was an authentic truth-teller.

I am equally confident that Trump will go down in flames during the general election, even if the Democratic Party chooses neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders, but instead fields a toaster oven as a candidate.

When the neo-fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen won a surprising second-place finish in the first round of the French presidential elections in 2002—capturing 16.8% of the vote to Jacques Chirac’s 19.8%— virtually all of French society came together to defeat the monster. In the second round, Chirac racked up 82.2% of the vote to Le Pen’s measly 17.7%.

The gap won’t be nearly as large in a showdown with Trump. But whatever reservations people might have about Clinton’s emails, Sanders’ socialism or the toaster oven’s lack of sentience, the idea of Donald Trump controlling the nuclear football will send a clear majority of voters running screaming to the polls to cast their anti-Trump ballots. In addition, many Republicans will simply stick their heads in the sand on Election Day until, they hope and pray, the problem goes away.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump / Flickr

The real question is: Will the problem go away even after Trump slinks back to his New York City penthouse?

According to one strain of thought, Trump will leave behind no mark on politics because he’s a one-of-a-kind disrupter. American politics, bruised by the new low bar it had to shimmy under, will nevertheless return to its previous state of subservience to more predictable corporate and geopolitical interests.

But the mainstream is worried, and not just about the prospect of Trump turning the White House into just another jewel in his real-estate crown.

America’s very leadership in the world is at stake, argues Fred Hiatt, who came away clearly shaken from a recentÌęWashington PostÌęeditorial board meeting with the Republican Party candidate. The tradition of “U.S. leadership, beginning with presidents such as Truman and Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton 
 stands in danger today,” HiattÌę. He was clearly not pleased to hear about Trump’s preference to see the United States disengage, however modestly, from its overseas military commitments.

After all, it’s not just Trump who is pummeling America’s tradition of leadership, Hiatt argues. It’s a one-two punch, with President Barack Obama delivering the other blow. The so-called political center is worried that Trump is tapping into a much deeper sentiment that the president has also been cultivating of late: a desire to see America withdraw from the world.

Trump’s Eye View

It’s amusing to read the transcript of theÌęPost’sÌę. It could have been written by the recently departed Garry Shandling, the master of stand-up who brought cringe comedy to the small screen withÌęIt’s Garry Shandling’s ShowÌęin the 1980s. Trump, with all his bloated self-importance, sounds like someone Shandling might have created solely for the purpose of skewering.

TheÌęPostÌęstaffers seemed as if they couldn’t quite believe what they were hearing. They were thrown by the candidate’s flagrant bombast and refusal to play by the rules of the game. The PostÌęeditors expected a round of bridge. Instead, Trump brought a Louisville Slugger to the game.

Consider, for example, this exchange on military bases. Trump points out that South Korea is a rich country and wonders why the US is paying for military bases there. Charles Lane, the columnist, points out that South Korea covers 50% of the costs:

“TRUMP: 50 percent?

LANE: Yeah.

TRUMP: Why isn’t it 100 percent?

HIATT: Well I guess the question is, does the United States gain anything by having bases?

TRUMP: Personally I don’t think so. I personally don’t think so. Look. I have great relationships with South Korea. I have buildings in South Korea. But that’s a wealthy country. They make the ships, they make the televisions, they make the air conditioning. They make tremendous amounts of products. It’s a huge, it’s a massive industrial complex country. And —

HIATT: So you don’t think the U.S. gains from being the force that sort of helps keep the peace in the Pacific?

TRUMP: I think that we are not in the position that we used to be. I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country. And we’re a poor country now. We’re a debtor nation.”

Trump’s description of the US as a “poor country” elicitedÌę from Robert Samuelson, again in TheÌęPost. But Trump’s essential point, that perhaps the US can’t quite afford to garrison the globe—when US infrastructure is falling apart and large communities are mired in poverty—remains an important one. He also wonders why the US lavishes funds on Saudi Arabia, why European allies don’t pay more for NATO, and why our adversaries are using our own weapons against us—all legitimate questions.

Trump is a terrifying figure. But he may prove to be a useful idiot. It probably takes someone of Trump’s vapid visibility to drive home the point that “world’s policeman” is not a viable role for the US to play.

But it’s the way he lays out his arguments that confounds his interlocutors. The fact that he has great relationships with South Korea is irrelevant. And he avoids any discussion of Asian security—probably because he can’t tell a Dokdo from a Senkaku. As MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell points out, Trump’s conversational gambits are designed to conceal his own vast ignorance. “When he doesn’t know something, he just changes the subject, and makes it all about himself,” sheÌę.

In this way, Trump isÌę, but instead of gardening, he talks about himself. No one misinterprets this as profundity, as they do when Chance becomes a media celebrity in Jerzy Kozinski’s novelÌęBeing There. But it’s a strategy perfectly designed to throw opponents off guard and prevent them from challenging his positions. Trump doesn’t even pretend to play the same game.

As the Donald might say, he’s in a league of his own.

On Leadership

But let’s focus on the heart of the matter—Trump’s challenge of the bipartisan consensus that the US should lead the world.

Democrats and Republicans disagree about many things. But with a few exceptions they all support an enormous military budget, an expensive overseas expeditionary force, and unilateral acts of force when necessary to protect US national interests (understood broadly).

It’s an odd paradox that Trump, who blathers on about making America great again, departs from this consensus. Probably as president, he wouldn’t. But he’s decided that, as an electoral strategy, bringing the war dollars home to rebuild America is popular among those who have largely lost out during the tech booms, the real estate booms, the financial booms, and all the other economic bubbles that have helped redirect money from the struggling middle class and the working poor to wealthy professionals and a few magnates (like Trump himself). That voters support someone who so clearly doesn’t represent their economic interests speaks not to their stupidity, but to the obvious lack of anyone else in either party who actually cares about the interests of those left behind.

Bernie Sanders / Flickr

Bernie, you say? Yes, but he’s only been a Democrat for a tiny percentage of his political career. Indeed, he made a name for himself in Vermont by opposing Democrats and aligning himself with Republicans if necessary. Unions have dwindled in membership. Progressives command little respect within the Democratic Party. And the Republicans long ago became the party of oligarchy.

This is really what the political mainstream is worried about—not that Trump will win. Or that Hillary Clinton will decide somehow to pursue Obama’s legacy of disengaging from the Middle East, which he articulated in some detail in aÌęÌęwithÌęThe Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. Neither of these scenarios will play out. Trump will lose; Hillary firmly supports the foreign policy status quo.

No, the mainstream is worried that the political parties will realize that the “bring the war dollars home” message can win a national election and disrupt the comfortable revolving-door consensus. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren will run on this platform in 2020. Perhaps the Republican Party, which will fracture as a result of Trump’s current suicide bombing attempt, will reform around its older, more isolationist tradition.

Before that happens, of course, we’ll have to endure a very ugly election followed by four years of foreign policy as usual. The US will continue its drone attacks, its selective interventions, its costly alliances. Meanwhile, America will continue to implode structurally, the population becoming even further polarized politically and economically. The essential choice—to refocus national energies on rebuilding the economy at home or to wage endless conflict overseas—will be put off until 2020.

Trump is a terrifying figure. But he may prove to be a useful idiot. It probably takes someone of Trump’s vapid visibility to drive home the point that “world’s policeman” is not a viable role for the US to play. Eventually, someone with a bigger brain and a smaller ego will pick up this message, run with it and win big at the polls.

The foreign policy mavens at TheÌęPostÌęare right to be quaking in their boots.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:Ìę Ìę/

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your Ìęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Donald Trump is Foreign Policy’s Useful Idiot appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

We have all known since her husband Bill ran for president in 1992 against George H.W. Bush. After becoming a public figure, she carved out her own political career that saw her go from first lady toÌę, winning the New York seat in the Senate in 2000.

Eight years later, Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2008 presidential campaign, but was defeated in the Democratic primaries by then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama. The latter appointed herÌę, a position she held from 2009 to 2013 in one of the most critical periods of history.

Clinton is widely thought of as the pragmatic candidate for the Democratic Party whoseÌęÌęon certain topics draws her closer to some in the Republican Party. She supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and actively endorsed the NATO-led intervention in Libya in 2011.

Many of her critics disparagingly argue that she has always been part of theÌę. Of course, she has. At the beginning, she was clearly facilitated by President Bill Clinton’s role and capitalized on his office as a springboard forÌę. ButÌęHillary succeeded thanks toÌę—President Obama once called her “wicked smart”—reinventing herself from time to time.

Think aboutÌę, which led to prison overcrowding and disproportionately affected African Americans, who face the highest rate of incarceration in the US. Now, she positions herself as a champion for black rights andÌę. Or consider her lobbying hard in favor of her husband’s 1996Ìę that gutted social services and hadÌę, especially women and children. Now, she is anÌę.

A Step to the Left

Vermont Senator made his way through the US political , until turning to the Democratic Party in 2015. At the beginning of his political career, he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont’s most populous city, three consecutive times. After that, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1991, where he served for 16 years, followed by election to the Senate in 2006.

During his career, Sanders has stood out to be a strong advocate ofÌęÌęlike income inequality, LGBT rights, racial discrimination and bank accountability. He was also an outspoken opponent of US wars in IraqÌęandÌęvoted against the use of force in that country in both 1991 and 2003.

Bernie Sanders © Shutterstock

Sanders has brought a breath of fresh air to the US presidential primaries. He is positioning himself as the anti-establishment candidate that Clinton represents. He threw down the gauntlet against the foreign policyÌę. By the same token, he is refocusing US foreign policy into a domestic issue. More than once, Sanders has advocated cutting down on defense spending in order to divert money to the public sector. His politics has always been driven by interest in economic inequality and wealth redistribution, as well as corporations and Wall Street’s stranglehold on politics in the United States. To Sanders, foreign policy isÌę.

However, the claims that Sanders espouses a socialist foreign policy are not supported by facts. For instance, even though he spoke out against deploying American troops on the ground in Iraq and arming Syrian rebels, Sanders supports the US bombing campaign against the Islamic State (IS). Even so, he is depicted by mainstream as pacifist and isolationist. If opposing regime change is enough to be called isolationist, then Sanders is one.

He canÌęalso be seen as an isolationist if thisÌęmeans insisting that America stops being the world’s policeman. Yet it is worth pointing out that Sanders,Ìę, voted for a resolution supporting the air campaign in former Yugoslavia. Sanders actively supported the bombing of Afghanistan in 2001 and the Obama administration’s drone strikes policy. Bernie “the socialist” has not veered far from the DemocraticÌęÌęduring his tenure,Ìędisplaying a deep streak of realism.

Sanders’ attitude on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict bears more of aÌęresemblance withÌę. He supports a two-state solution, while being an advocate of Israel and its security concerns and actively calls on the Palestinians toÌęÌęto end terrorism against Israel and recognize its right to exist. Sanders’ posture over the Israel-Palestine question, despite added grievances toward him from the left of the Democratic Party, seems likely to tilt him more toward Tel Aviv than Obama.

During the 2014 Gaza War, Sanders excused Israeli actions—though calling them heavy-handed. Nevertheless, in 2015, Sanders decided toÌęÌęin the US Congress, which was orchestrated in an attempt to derail the nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran.

Overall, we could try to frame Sanders’ position within a political realism attitude of restraining American forces abroad. The distinction between interests and vital interests, and the need to align the instruments of power with the intensity of those interests, led Sanders to vote against the invasion of Iraq in 2002, while judiciously supporting the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s.

Sanders advocates more commitment to diplomacy in order to avoid war and military action, and he endorses a great power cooperation within global institutions and international law. He is closer to the post-hegemonic vision of several scholars: HeÌęÌęthat the US should forgo its dominant role, as the world has changed from the 1990, and share powers with responsible rising hegemons.

Setting Foreign Policy Aside

However, despite the fact that Sanders was able to lay down the line on domestic issues, turning the debate to topics such economic inequality and the shrinking of the middle-class, he abandoned—at least at the beginning—a likely andÌę, namely her hawkish posture on US foreign policy.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders is much more similar to Obama. He did not support the catastrophic war in Iraq, and he is highly skeptical over the use of military force “whenever and wherever” American interests are at stake.

Sanders has put himself in an awkward position more than once. When asked about IS, heÌęÌęthe Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as a moderate Muslim country and then labeled King Abdullah (firstlyÌęÌęhim) as a hero for having called upon a regional Muslim coalition to defeat the Islamic State.

That was a huge gaffe. First, in terms of coalition airstrikes against IS, the role of Jordan wasÌę. The kingdom escalated airstrikes in response to the execution of one of its pilots by IS, but a few months later, US Secretary of Defense Ash CarterÌę. Also, hearing a self-declared socialist call a ruler of an absolute monarchy with limited tolerance for dissent and restricted freedom of expression a hero was an awkward step.

This is just one example, but it is paradigmatic of Sanders’ startingÌę: He broadly let Clinton handle the topic and has played along with his rival’s narrative thus far.

On US foreign policy, Clinton has been considered overwhelmingly superior in comparison to Sanders. As former secretary of state, she is a safe bet. Unlike Clinton, whose campaign team is filled with several hundred foreign policy advisers,Ìę—until recently. Hiring several experienced foreign policy advisers is a must.

In the most recent Democrat debates, Sanders appeared more comfortable and unabashed in handling foreign policy issues. Bernie fired back criticism about his alleged inexperience and attacked Hillary. In fact, although he was depicted as a lightweight in US foreign policy and was frequently labeled a beginner, he has had a long tenure in the House of Representatives and Senate, which gives him more foreign policy experience thanÌęÌęby the time they ran for office.

When Clinton went on the attack against Sanders,Ìę, heÌęstruck back at her continuous approval of Henry Kissinger—“one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country,” according to Bernie. When Clinton came out criticizing Sanders for his words about Iran (“a huge step forward for warming ties with a powerful country”), he criticized her support for regime change and hawkish posturing. (Throughout her time in office, Clinton actively backed the United Nations resolution that led to airstrikesÌę,Ìęand she supported the ÌęIraq War but later.)

Clinton is aÌęÌęof the use of military force whenever and wherever American interests are at stake. With Hillary in office, US foreign policy is likely to be similar to that of theÌęObama administration, but more hawkish. She is on the Democrat’s right-wing and believes in a government approach to world affairs that is committed to theÌę,Ìęwhere the US isÌęentitled to global leadership and isÌęvital to maintaining the stability of order.

HavingÌęserved in the Obama administration for four years, sheÌęharshly criticizedÌę“”Ìęforeign policy approach, arguing that the US should strike a better balance between overreaching overseas and being so restrained that conflict can spiral out of control.

Hillary Clinton © Shutterstock

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders is much more similar to Obama. He did not support the catastrophic war in Iraq, and he is highly skeptical over the use of military force “whenever and wherever” American interests are at stake. This position reflects the main concern of Sanders: that the real threats to the US are at home.

Indeed, without concerted efforts within international law to address the problems of the world properly, America will never be able to rebuild its strength at home—namely a growing economy and the resilience of itsÌęfounding values. As emphasized, Sanders is not a pacifist, nor an isolationist. He is aÌęÌęwhose rejection of deployingÌęUS troops across the globeÌęis well-grounded in history and logic.

Sober Realism

First, US foreign policy is not going to take center stage. Despite a year of turmoil and new threats abroad, Americans are overwhelmingly focused on domestic policy issues. Clinton and Sanders follow suit. They are more concerned about state of the economy and unemployment, as well as the health care system and college tuition.

This could play in Sanders’ favor, considering hisÌęÌęas honest and less embedded with the establishment, while Clinton is often associated with untrustworthiness of theÌęÌęandÌę.

Second, it is time for Hillary Clinton to take seriously the threat posed by Bernie Sanders. She should stop her “” tactics, which already proved unsuccessful in 2008 against Obama. Her “warlike” posture is carefully thought out for drawing support from undecided voters, especially from white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and dithering Republicans.

But America has changed, and so have theÌę.ÌęÌęand the impact of black and Hispanic voters tilt the balance of power toward the more democratic candidate. For now, Clinton has more support among African American and Hispanic communities than Sanders, but she must not this take for granted.

Clinton should do more than keep on insistingÌęthat she is used to the nitty-gritty of politics or that she has a long story of support for women and children’s empowerment. The distrust of Hillary Clinton is due to her double-faced attitude over the years. On the one hand, she earnedÌę, while on the other she assertsÌęÌęon the financial sector.ÌęÌęhave raised money for her campaign, while she positions herself as the

An obvious discrepancy between words and deeds can be costly. What sets Bernie Sanders apart in this political contest is that he seems to have stuck to his principled stance throughout his political career. Whether this will be enough to win him the Democratic Party nomination remains to be seen. With Hillary Clinton, we know fully well that she is capable ofÌęchanging her colors any timeÌęit suits her.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:ÌęÌę/ / /ÌęÌę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post How Different Are Clinton and Sanders? appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

At the Democratic debate on February 11, presidential candidates and had a spirited exchange about an unlikely topic: the 92-year-old former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Sanders berated Clinton for saying she appreciated the foreign policy mentoring she got from Kissinger. “I happen to believe,” , “that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.”

In one of Sanders’ rare outbursts of enmity, he added: “I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, was one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.”

Clinton went on to defend Kissinger, using the example of China. “His opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America,” she insisted.

Sanders responded that Kissinger scared Americans about communist China, then opened up trade so US corporations could dump American workers and hire exploited, repressed Chinese.

First, he warned us about “the terrible, authoritarian, communist dictatorship,” groaned Sanders, “now he’s urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy.”

Now that many Americans, particularly young ones, are hearing the name of Henry Kissinger, they should learn some other reasons about why he would not make a good mentor.

Who is Henry Kissinger?

As secretary of state, Kissinger facilitated the horrendous 1973 coup against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende that brought to power the ruthless Augusto Pinochet in Chile. As some 5,000 people were being detained and tortured in Chile’s National Stadium, KissingerÌę: “You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.” The Pinochet dictatorship, which lasted for two decades, left over 3,000 people dead or missing, thousands tortured and hundreds of thousands driven into exile.

There was also Kissinger’s role in the brutal 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which took place just hours after he and President Gerald Ford visited Indonesia. They had given the Indonesian strongman the US green light—and the weapons—for an invasion that led to a 25-year occupation in which over 100,000 soldiers and civilians were killed or starved to death. The United Nations’ Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR) stated that US “political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation” of East Timor.

Henry Kissinger © Shutterstock

The report by the describes the horrific consequences of that invasion. It includes gang rape of female detainees following periods of prolonged sexual torture; placing women in tanks of water for prolonged periods, including submerging their heads, before being raped; the use of snakes to instill terror during sexual torture; and the mutilation of women’s sexual organs, including insertion of batteries into vaginas and burning nipples and genitals with cigarettes.

From 1969 through 1973, it was Kissinger, along with President Richard Nixon, who oversaw the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos—killing perhaps 1 million people during this period. He was the one who gave the order for the secret bombing of Cambodia. Kissinger is on tape saying: “[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything about it. It’s an order, to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves.”

In 2001, the French Judge Roger Le Loire issued a warrant to have KissingerÌę to account for his actions. When Kissinger received the summons at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, he fled the country. More indictments followed from Spain, Argentina and Uruguay—even a civil suit in Washington, DC.

The late writer Christopher Hitchens, in , skewers the former secretary of state for ordering or sanctioning the destruction of civilian populations, the assassination of “unfriendly” politicians and the kidnapping and disappearance of soldiers, journalists and clerics who got in his way. He holds Kissinger responsible for war crimes that range from the deliberate mass killings of civilian populations in Indochina, to collusion in mass murder and assassination in Bangladesh, the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile, and the incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor.

Hitchens was a lot harder on Kissinger than the civil Bernie Sanders. “Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded,”Ìę. “No more dinners in his honor; no more respectful audiences for his absurdly overpriced public appearances; no more smirking photographs with hostesses and celebrities; no more soliciting of his worthless opinions by sycophantic editors and producers.”

Hitchens could have added another category of people who shouldn’t solicit Kissinger’s dangerous opinions: presidential candidates.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ìę/Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Should Henry Kissinger Mentor a Presidential Candidate? appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

and her high profile supporters have a new strategy. To women who don’t favor her, the message is: It’s not me, it’s you. It has all the promise of that breakup line aimed at winning someone back.

In addition, Clinton described her presidential rival as using an “artful smear” forÌęÌęof her Wall Street funding, and Bill Clinton belittled Bernie about the use of the word “establishment.” It’s pretty delicious irony, served hot.

Madeleine Albright

To recap, on February 6, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton in , “There’sÌęa special place in hellÌęfor women who don’t support other women.”

A day earlier,ÌęÌęas to why Hillary is doing so poorly with younger women, offered Bill Maher this: “When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’â¶Ä (ThisÌęÌęgiven Clinton polls better with men, and it resulted in aÌę.)

Bill Clinton tried to distract from this mess by questioning who is part of the establishment—evenÌę,Ìę and many people have said the Clintons are. And, he says, some Sanders’ supporters are mean.

Meanwhile, female senators and politicians rallied round Hillary Clinton after she eked out a tie in the first Democratic race in Iowa. She isÌę.

Sanders just won theÌęNew Hampshire primary, a state in which he was down by 50 points. His 22-point margin reflected higher support of almost every demographic, including women.

Is Clinton’s framing of gender and power embracing or alienating?

WHO GOES TO HELL?

Albright’s proclamation was a revelation. Personally, I had thought my support of women through my work on campus sexual assault, talks on issues affecting women, and my writing on a variety of progressive issues might stand me in good stead with a higher moral authority. But apparently my support for Bernie Sanders will make my gender hell evaluation, um, hellacious.

My head started spinning around like in The Exorcist, even as I pondered my special place in a place that I don’t believe in. But I quickly realized that I’d have company.

Albright told us that “” of Western sanctions on Iraq that killed an estimated 500,000 children in the 1990s, according to United Nations estimates; she also stronglyÌę. For the incredible pain she caused to mothers who lost their babies and to other female victims, Albright will head straight to purgatory. While the former secretary of state has said she regretted the statement on Iraq, she did not disavow the sanctions regime that caused two oil-for-food coordinators to resign due to devastating humanitarian effects.

Clinton willÌęÌęfor her support of the 2003 invasion and destabilization of Iraq. AboutÌęÌę(adjusted for time) died in Iraq. While we do not know exact numbers, it is likely that hundreds of thousands who died were women.

But the real question is: Will she go to an “extra special” place?

Let’s look at how women have been “supported” by her. Clinton did not support gay marriage till 2013 and “evolved” to backing it as a constitutional right in 2015.

After representing the US as secretary of state in Copenhagen where the 2 degree Celsius scientific limit was recognized, Clinton has since been hesitant to publicly champion this (orÌę) goal. So too has she been slow to recognize that the vast majority of fossil fuels must stay in the ground. Women suffer more from catastrophic climate change, yet theÌęÌęhas not been at the forefront of her efforts. Of course, women are part of all humanity that will experience climate change as overriding hardship or a death sentence.

Clinton has been very weak on inequality (perÌę), even after decades of public service. Championing the rights of women and addressing global poverty effectively must entail recognizing wealth distribution is a major driver.

As head of one of the largest foundations of the world, she must have contended with a financial crash that exploited particularÌę. Where has she been publicly on this issue in the past, before announcing her presidential run? Has she spoken up when regulation has been undercut through bank lobbying and congressional action? One could go on.

A friend in the Obama administration said to me several weeks ago: “I guess she’ll be fine for white, upper-class women.”

MONEY AND THE MOMENT

Clinton evades a broader conversation about feminism and identity (beyond complaining about biased media coverage that often targets progressive politicians generally—see theÌęÌęorÌę).

Hillary Clinton © Shutterstock

She specifically highlights the unique aspect of a female presidency. True, many of us would vote for Jane Linn over Joe Linn. But is a female leader, inherently, a better one? Many Democrats didn’t vote for Sarah Palin because she was a poor candidate, so the answer is no. Could a female candidate be used to gin up more opposition, and is this a reason to vote against her? Maybe, and probably not. Does she have to be aggressive on foreign policy in order to win? If so, are we inherently buying into more deaths of people in Africa and the Middle East with another Clinton presidency? Sometimes we’re told that President Barack Obama couldn’t effectively champion revitalization of our inner cities (and he’s certainly had a mixed record when it comes, broadly, to the plight of African Americans), so would women achieve less under Clinton’s leadership?

But most Sanders supporters I know do not ask these questions. They believe the most revolutionary thing they can do is elect Bernie Sanders. That from corporate fraudulence to climate, true to his record, he’ll deliver.

Clinton supporters say focus on the issues. And people do: Her record on them and her conflicts with the public interest through corporate alliances. Instead of being asked where they were when the astronauts landed on the moon or other milestones, Democratic candidates are held to account for where they were when corporations ran amuck keeping billions abroad and in tax havens, whenÌęÌęin America, and when we faced environmental disasters from the hyperlocal to the global.

Was Clinton on the front lines of the People’s Climate March? How actively has she spoken of the need to keep two-thirds of identified fossil fuels in the ground? Is it impossible to solve social and economic problems in a system where one-tenth of 1% has almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%? Has she spoken explicitly as to how she will stop inequality from worsening, even as just 62 people haveÌęÌęof the world?

Pick any of 30 issues where corporate or wealthy play a critical role in a hugely unjust, unsafe or unsustainable system. Hillary Clinton will not have spoken out against the wealthy and corporations in any meaningful, consistent way over decades.

Her frequent harking back to her days with the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) makes it pretty obvious that theÌęÌępays off. Marian Wright Edelman, the founder and head of CDF, has called the ClintonsÌę“,”Ìęand her husband, Peter Edelman, resigned from the Clinton administration over welfare reform.

Even recently when most people considered a Clinton run likely, Wall Street gave herÌęÌęfrom 2013 to 2015. Presumably, she had either done something for them or they believed she could be influenced to do so. It doesn’t take an “artful smear” she referenced in the last Democratic debate as much as a simple observation. However, SenatorÌęÌęevidence in the case of the bankruptcy bill that Clinton helped defeat as first lady, before voting for it as New York senator.

What If


The year is 2016. The world is headed for catastrophic climate change, wars rage across the Middle East and the poor are being exploited. Public health is rapidly deteriorating. In a world where Bill Clinton had not strayed (because I agree withÌęÌęfor President George W. Bush’s election), we might have a world in which a financial crisis was averted, as were several wars. A world in which people and the planet thrived. A world in which an “establishment” candidate looked great. A place in which I—and many of us—might vote for the very smart Hillary Clinton. And a world in which she made the choices to justify it.

But right now, I’d rather be in the heaven of a new progressive movement—one defined by big goals that will create a society of justice and sustainability through concerted action.

In fact, as Clinton and her champions lecture me about my gender, I increasingly think I should choose the special place they want to consign me to over voting for her.

But I’ll probably just ask my male friends what they’re doing.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ìę/Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Hillary, It’s Not Us, It’s You appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

It’s often said that, in democracies, we get the leaders that we deserve. In the current slugfest masquerading as a , it looks as though we’re getting the leader that our foreign policy deserves. The results of the first round of the 2016 presidential election in Iowa, with narrow victories by Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, only underscores this point.

Let me explain.

The Obama administration has engaged in several successful ventures in diplomacy—from negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran and reestablishing relations with Cuba to working with the international community to address climate change. As presidents go, Barack Obama has acted with aplomb as the diplomat-in-chief.

But still, US foreign policy is predicated on violence. We can measure this violence in a variety of ways:

1) The United States spends over $600 billion on the military. That’sÌęÌęmore than what China spends. That’s also as much as the next seven spenders combined.

2) The US militaryÌęÌęin 2015.

3) The Obama administration is still directly engaged in active wars in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

4) Outside these war zones, the US engages in drone attacks and targeted assassinations in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia that have killedÌęÌęsince Obama took office.

5) The US remains the leading arms merchant in the world. It controls roughly half the market. In 2014 alone, itÌę.

6) The US hasÌęÌęin its arsenal. It is spendingÌęÌęon modernizing a force that President Obama, in a celebrated speech in Prague in 2009, pledged to eliminate (though obviously not in the next 30 years).

Obama’s nuclear disarmament speech is emblematic of US policy. The United States often talks a good game when it comes to peace, but it is very reluctant in the end to put down its weapons. Even when the US engages in peaceful negotiations, it makes sure that all the participants in the process understand that “all options” remain on the table.

Donald Trump © Shutterstock

You’ve heard of shotgun weddings. The US specializes in shotgun diplomacy.

Moreover, US foreign policy has proceeded in this fashion for many decades, at least since our entry into World War II (though our military mindset can be traced back to the decision in the late 18^thÌęcentury to establish a blue-water navy to fight the Barbary pirates). It would be extraordinarily difficult for any one person, even with executive powers, to transform such a system. The major political parties—and, by extension, the voters—have showed no interest in nominating anyone who challenges these central precepts of American power.

In 2016, the prospects of transforming US foreign policy look particularly bleak. In this election cycle, the candidates are not simply embracing violence as a motivating force behind US foreign policy. They are demonstrating, in almost simian fashion, their qualifications for being an alpha male (and female). In other words, they are signaling that only a “strong” leader can project US strength in an uncertain world.

Put more bluntly, the United States is a country on steroids when it comes to national security. It’s no surprise, then, that our leading candidates—and quite a few second-tier ones as well—have made headlines with their ‘roid rages.

Republican Ugly

Foreign policy is never the leading edge in a presidential campaign, which generally revolves around domestic issues, particularly the economy. When talking about the economy, the current candidates often take combative stances—toward the IRS (a rogue agency), Wall Street (blood-sucking leeches), and sometimes even corporations (unpatriotic outsourcers).

But the economy is also a topic that allows successful candidates to show their empathetic side. They must somehow link arms with struggling Americans—and all but a tiny percentage of Americans are struggling with economic challenges—in a bid to appear as “one of us.” Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were able to connect with voters in this way. By contrast, Mitt Romney had aÌęÌęin 2012, as did John McCain four years earlier.

This year, the empathy gap is startling. , and Ted Cruz all received negative evaluations in theÌę. That is, a plurality of respondents felt that these candidates didn’t care about the needs and problems of “people like me.” The gap was astonishing with Trump (23%), but it was there for Clinton (5%) and Cruz (1%) as well. , not surprisingly, did well on this metric (plus 18%), and perhaps more unusually so did Marco Rubio (plus 7%).

On domestic policy, then, the current favorites are not projecting warm, fuzzy feelings. Even the two candidates with positive numbers come with asterisks. Sanders has more of a hectoring, Old Testament prophet vibe to him, and Rubio is becoming considerably more hard-edged to woo the far-right.

Ted Cruz © Shutterstock

If the candidates have difficulty mustering a modicum of empathy on domestic issues, it’s no surprise that they fail to show compassion on foreign policy issues. Particularly when it comes to the Republicans, international affairs is an opportunity for the presidential candidates to release their inner Neanderthal. Out come the clubs, the grunts, the threats and the posturing to prove that they are not so much “one of us” as “one of the guys.”

Every Republican candidate has promised, on seizing the Oval Office, to tear up the nuclear agreement with Iran. They have engaged in an informal contest to see who can use the most apocalyptic rhetoric for dealing with the Islamic State (winner: Ted Cruz for promising to bomb the would-be caliphate until the sand glows in the dark). They’ve competed in the category of most hateful Islamophobic comment (winner: Ben Carson for opposing the very idea of a Muslim becoming US president). They’ve waxed heartless about immigrants, with Trump leading the way. They’ve engaged in the usual China-bashing, with Carson criticizing Beijing’s imaginary intervention in Syria. And now that Lindsey Graham is out of the race, they have all rejected the overwhelming scientific consensus that the planet is heating up.

The Republicans have indulged in behavior so unbecoming and rhetoric so ugly that, if you somehow found yourself trapped next to one of the candidates in a confined space for a long time, you might very well decide to chew off your leg to escape. That’s the definition of Republican ugly.

And the Democrats?

It would be refreshing—and strategically wise—if the Democrats offered a distinct alternative on international affairs. On the face of it, of course, they do. Both Clinton and Sanders support the Iran agreement, refrain from Islamophobic comments, generally support accepting Syrian refugees into the country, and have no doubts about the reality of climate change.

But dig a little deeper and you’ll find that they embrace the same underlying militarism that informs the Obama administration’s national security policy. Clinton and Sanders offer something different from the Republicans, but not from the current status quo.

Hillary Clinton, for instance, has prided herself on taking more aggressive positions on foreign policy than Obama the candidate (in the 2008 election) and Obama the president (when she was secretary of state). The first time around as a candidate, she considered Obama’s proposed diplomatic overtures to willing adversaries to be dangerously naĂŻve. This time around as well, Clinton has tried toÌęÌęon Iran, even as she has supported the nuclear deal.

Clinton has also been an advocate of “smart power.” She has used this concept to put diplomacy at “the vanguard of foreign policy.” In reality, however, “smart power” has offered the Pentagon an opportunity to expand its reach beyond hard power.ÌęÌęduring the last presidential election cycle in 2012:

“Always in search of a mission, the Pentagon now has its fingers in just about every pie in the bakery. The Marines are doing drug interdictionÌęin Guatemala. Special Operations forces areÌęconstructing cyclone sheltersÌęin Bangladesh. The U.S. NavyÌęprovidedÌępost-disaster relief in Japan after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown, while the U.S. Army did theÌęsame in Haiti. In 2011, the Africa CommandÌębudgeted $150 millionÌęfor development and health care.

“The Pentagon, in other words, has turned itself into an all-purpose agency, evenÌęattempting ‘reconstruction’Ìęalong with State and various crony corporations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is preparing for the impact of climate change, pouring R & D dollars into alternative energy, and running operations in cyberspace. The Pentagon has been smart about its power by spreading it everywhere.”

As president, Clinton would likely apply her notions of “smart power” across government, making the military the touchstone for how the US engages the world.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton © Shutterstock

Bernie Sanders, as a self-avowed democratic socialist and lifelong progressive, might be expected to take a different position. And indeed, he opposed the Iraq War and has used that example to distinguish his foreign policy acumen from Clinton’s purported experience (which didn’t prevent her from supporting the invasion). He is also skeptical of the US assuming the role of the world’s policeman.

But Sanders, like Obama, does not challenge the notion that the US should have the strongest military in the world and use force when necessary. Like Obama, who recommended ending the “dumb war” in Iraq in order to focus on the “good war” in Afghanistan, Sanders urges Washington to refocus away from the fight against Bashar al-Assad in Syria and toward the Islamic State. He has already altered his position on Israel, moving “from heterodox support for an independent Palestinian state to a far more politically mainstream, generally pro-Israel stance,” as Derek DavisonÌę.

As president, Sanders might tweak the Pentagon budget by eliminating a few billion dollars of waste. He might scale back on US interventions. But he would more likely continue in the direction in which he has started moving as candidate: demonstrating that he can wield power just like the big boys.

The Price of Power

US foreign policy, basically, is a set of brutal statements about the nature of power in the world: where it resides, how it is maintained. The American people have never elected anyone who has challenged American power projection in any significant way—only presidents who’ve preferred to focus US military attention on one part of the world over another.

Is it realistic to expect any candidate for president to challenge the foreign policy status quo?

Obama shifted US positions on Iran, Cuba and climate change with public opinion on his side. No American executive will think of challenging the national security state without a comparable shift in public opinion. Such a shift would require a sea change in the way Americans think of themselves: a change in culture before a change in policy.

In the meantime, we’ll be stuck with the president we deserve, and more importantly, the one our foreign policy deserves. Our foreign policy is aggressive, parochial and hard-hearted. Don’t be surprised, then, if our next president is the same.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / / / Ìę/Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Aggressive US Foreign Policy Will Produce a Hard-Headed President appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

US presidential candidates and are two very different figures, yet they share the same feature: They both oppose the political establishment that includes the media, the big corporations and lobbies, and most mainstream politicians be they Republican or Democratic. The establishment politicians claim they want to make things better for Americans—when they know this isn’t true—and that a thoroughly corrupted political system cannot produce the kind of candidates that truly benefit the masses.

In March 2015, Rob Andrews, former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, predicted that the final match-up in November 2016 would be vs Jeb Bush—the establishment figures facing off against each other. These are two rather familiar names, as both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush appeared on the 1992 ballot, except that this time it could be the wife and the son of either of these former candidates.

The Donald

But in summer 2015, Trump rose in the Republican polls with his biting political statements, sexism, racism, and anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican and anti-Chinese hate speech. The more hateful and controversial his statements, the more political support he would get. The establishment initially believed that Trump was just a fluke who would collapse as soon as the summer was over. But he kept on climbing up and has never come down. For a short time, it was believed that Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon just as crazy as Trump, could compete with him until errors in his campaign made the Republican presidential candidate disappear in the background.

But what makes Trump so popular?

It’s the fact that he doesn’t speak for the political establishment. He claims that all the Republican candidates raise money from the big banks, big pharma, big defense, big insurance, big oil and other big lobbies. It isn’t surprising that they are all beholden to big corporate interests.

That was certainly the case for the union-busting Scott Walker, who was set up by the Koch brothers, but quickly dropped out of the race to save himself more embarrassment. Ted Cruz is the most promising of all Republican establishment candidates, though he tries to portray himself as the representative of the Tea Party and the evangelical right. But that is being a fake outsider, because the Tea Party is bankrolled by the wealthy oligarchs, and the evangelicals under George W. Bush were also financed by the rich, but were galvanizing the less educated, devout followers. Cruz or any other candidate would be nowhere without their mega donors behind them. The Republican base knows this.

So here they have Donald Trump—a smug, half-educated (though he graduated from Wharton), posh real-estate tycoon, reality TV star and multibillionaire— who can say whatever he wants without relying on the money of his fellow plutocrats.

Donald Trump © Shutterstock

In his Facebook and Twitter messages, Trump emphasizes how he doesn’t rely on money from the donor class, and he receives positive feedback from the Republican base. The rest of his status updates are empty platitudes that range from demeaning his opponents or a minority to “making America great again.” The policy implication here is quite obvious: US voters will not really get anything from Trump except empty rhetoric, more tax cuts for the rich and harsher anti-immigrant policies. A Trump presidency will not put their kids through college, pay the rent or give them a job, but it will punish the establishment.

Feel the Bern

Among the Democratic contenders, there is a little bit more optimism. Bernie Sanders has a true social democratic agenda, making capitalism work for the working-class. Sanders started with 2-3% in the polls, while Hillary Clinton had been the “inevitable” candidate with 60-70% voter support. She had the name recognition, which continued throughout summer 2015 because mainstream media kept on accepting her as the inevitable Democratic candidate.

But there is something very different today, and even President Barack Obama had realized this in his 2008 bid: The power of the Internet, social networks and online alternative media mean that younger voters have a much broader range of news sources, and they are hungry for a political candidate who can provide better solutions to their pressing problems.

As the months went by, Sanders reached 25% of national support in polls, and he was narrowing the gap quite substantially in New Hampshire, the second state for voting in the US presidential primaries. Clinton was still 25-30 points ahead, but who would have thought that Sanders could gain so much momentum?

Then something strange happened. The summer turned into autumn, and around September the poll figures began to stagnate for Sanders. Vice President Joe Biden decided not to run. In late fall, Clinton looked like she would surge ahead. Historically, one might say that she deserves to be the first female president after the more charismatic Obama took the limelight from her eight years prior. But let’s be clear here: No person has a natural entitlement to the presidency, and people should select the candidate who is best for America.

On all political issues, Clinton is nowhere near as progressive as Sanders. She has formulated some progressive positions, but only after Sanders pushed them forward. When Clinton served as secretary of state, she was supportive of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and was open to the idea of the Keystone oil pipeline. When Sanders voiced his opposition, she swung against both. Clinton told journalists that she “evolved” on these issues. She had no strong position on the minimum wage until Sanders took the popular demand for $15 per hour, and she repeated the mantra but stuck at only $12 dollars an hour. She developed no clear plan for college access until Sanders pushed for free college tuition at public universities—and only then did she reveal a plan to “make college more affordable.”

To say this is “evolving” on issues is just plain stupid. Clinton was pressured to make concessions to Sanders, and when she made them, she pretended that her previous position didn’t matter. For people on the left who are serious about political change, this is a very bad message. If Clinton is so quick to change her position like the color of her clothes, what will prevent her from switching back to accepting the status quo once elected?

In some policy areas, that is rather obvious as is the case for the unwillingness to break up the big banks (huge campaign contributors of hers) or to create a single-payer health care system (with big insurers and pharma backing her). Clinton represents the rotten core of establishment politics.

In December, polls showed that even though Sanders was narrowing the Clinton lead in Iowa while building his lead inÌęNew Hampshire, he was still trailing by more than 20 points nationally. In comparison, in December 2007, Obama was trailing Clinton by an average of 10 to 15 points nationally. All signs pointed to a Clinton vs Trump match-up. But the latest January polls have indicated otherwise. Clinton is now in serious trouble because she gave up on both Iowa and New Hampshire, while nationally she only leads between by around 5-7 points. The national lead could quickly melt away, as Iowa and New Hampshire bring forward the political momentum as the presidential primaries begin on February 1.

Now, it is likely to say that Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic nomination for president.

People are feeling the Bern as they come out to his events, see his social media presence, and hear him speak on the most serious issues facing America. Clinton is clearly a seasoned politician, but beyond the same-old rhetoric, she has nothing to offer. Why? Because Hillary wants to be populist enough to get the popular vote, while not being too populist to prevent offending her mega-rich donors like the big banks.

This has been the story of the Democratic Party time and time again. As income and wealth became more concentrated, the Republican Party became a rich-people party, while the Democratic Party wanted to fake it both ways. That’s what the Bill Clinton New Democrat movement was all about, and that is what Barack Obama’s hope and change message was about.

With Bernie Sanders it is quite different. He gets earth-shattering small donations from voters, while rejecting the super PACs and other big campaign donors. With that structure in place, he can afford to offend the wealthy interests and say what he thinks is right: break up the big banks, create a huge infrastructure project, tax the rich, single payer health care, free college tuition and a higher minimum wage. Americans hear that and they love it.

Pro-Hillary media have tried their best to downplay the Sanders phenomenon. First, they had a . Second, they said that Sanders’ function is just to push Clinton to the left rather than be a serious candidate himself. Third, they tried to get Sanders to make personal attacks against Clinton, which the Vermont senator never does because he only cares about the “issues.” Fourth, they hammer Sanders on supposed inconsistencies with his issues, but he dismantles substantial attacks on his policies easily.

Now that he is rising in the polls, these tried strategies don’t work. So now, media outlets are really covering Sanders, albeit still less than what his poll numbers would suggest. Mahatma Gandhi once said: “First, your enemies ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Could this be the case for Bernie?

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton © Shutterstock

The Clinton campaign flips from calmness to panic. Daughter Chelsea Clinton made cheap shot attacks against Sanders’ health care plan for “dismantling” Obamacare, without mentioning that he intends to replace it with a more cost-effective and universal single payer program. Hillary Clinton tried to paint Sanders as a gun nut, which might be a smart move in a country polarized and shocked by senseless gun murders. But the strategy exhausted itself because Sanders proudly defended his D-gun lobby voting record. Clinton then said that if the electorate wants to guarantee a Democratic president, they should vote for the “moderate” one.

The November Match-Up

The polling shows that in the key swing states, Sanders defeats Trump and Cruz by significantly higher margins than Clinton, contrary to what Hillary has said. Why does that make sense?

Political punditry should convince us that the moderate figures can pull in more votes. Clinton is clearly the moderate politician, while Cruz and Trump are evidently on the crazy fringe to the right, and Sanders on the left. Yes, in normal political times this might be true, but these are not normal times. Americans live in an economy where only very few people benefit from it. Many are working longer hours for lower wages, while almost all new income flows to the very rich, making the wealth distribution similar to what we had in the late 1920s. This is a politically and morally untenable situation, and Americans have had enough. They want change.

If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she might narrowly win the White House against Trump or she might lose against him, and that is because the left-wing Sanders supporters will be so furious as to stay home in the November 2016 election or even switch over to Trump to air their frustration against Clinton. Most moderate Democrats will continue backing Clinton, but the Republican base and many independent voters will stick with Trump. He is anti-establishment, and she is part of the establishment.

To show the corrupted nature of Clinton, one just needs to look at her visit of a family friend’s wedding ceremony in 2005: no other than Donald Trump. How much money did Trump give to her Senate reelection in 2006?

If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, he will smash any Republican opponent. He will have the left-wing firmly on his side and most of the independent voters and moderates, who find free college and universal health care to be more promising than immigrant bashing and xenophobia. Sanders will even pull some of the Republican base with him, especially in the key swing states like New Hampshire or Ohio.

In the case of Trump vs Sanders, Americans have a genuine choice between two anti-establishment figures, and that will likely drive the voter turnout. The choices cannot be any starker, because one is a social democrat and the other is a fascist. A candidate of hope and a candidate of despair.

Electoral shakeup is the way forward in economically and politically challenging times. Democratic decision-making is hampered when neoliberal and oligarchic economic policies are the only tolerable mainstream positions. Anyone who begs to differ will carry the most votes. Syriza in Greece, Jeremy Corbyn in Britain, Trump or Sanders in the US. Even if the political economy does not change for the better, then even more radical solutions can no longer be precluded. Hopefully it won’t go that far.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / Ìę/Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Is America Ready for Trump vs Sanders? appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Senator heads into New HampshireÌęÌęandÌę, despite the array of forces aligned against a candidate who highlights the cost of our concentrated wealth. Sanders was virtually blacked out of the media and Democrat debates were severely limited. The Democratic presidential candidate doesn’t even have the foundational work of the “liberal class” to build on: Many “liberal” institutions have shied from effectively advancing progressive ideals that conflict with donor interests.

In a functional democracy, there might not be a “Bern” to feel. Sanders would be an ordinary politician whose consistent positions have been guided by the public interest. “One of 565,” we’d yawn, “and not even blessed with out-of-this-world looks or charisma.” The freshness and resonance of Bernie’s candidacy speaks powerfully to major failures of American democracy.

feels this widespread frustration in America. She has tried to frame herself as a breakthrough candidate, highlighting herself as potentially the first female US president. It’s evident that this is a far longer shot for someone looking to broadcast critical truths to advance progressive policies. One willing to dismantle boundaries set up by the Establishment is a potentially transformational figure and a far greater underdog.

Bernie’s honesty and commitment to “America” has brought results in the form of record-breaking crowds and donations.

Of course, Clinton has given Sanders the gift of her Establishment past. Surely she knew the fight to be elected president would be particularly challenging for a woman due, in part, to discrimination. Her calculated career moves—from first lady to senator to global philanthropist to secretary of state—should have made her an unassailable candidate, she must have thought. Yet today these positions represent greater liabilities than assets. The system has profoundly failed the American people. And Hillary’s failure to be an outspoken critic of key associates, like Walmart and bank executives, hurts her even more.

Perhaps Clinton’s error was one of philosophy: “Your right is to work only, but never to the fruit thereof,” says the Bhagavad Gita about goal orientation. The excellent unauthorized autobiography, by Harry Jaffe, shows Sanders has mostly taken the opposite approach—doing good work, regardless of the political priorities of the power elite or where it will lead.

Bernie Sanders © Shutterstock

Suzanna Walters, a professor at Northeastern University, was recently on . “Most of our major leaders, people who reach this level of political life, make all kinds of compromises, are deeply compromised people in their politics,” said the Clinton supporter. Bernie is not.

This article examines the forces aligned against Bernie Sanders and his agenda: the “Establishment,” which has been under so much debate recently; institutional obstacles to Bernie’s visibility and the policies he champions; and Hillary Clinton’s strategic failures.

THE “ESTABLISHMENT”

Late January brings another compelling call to clarify basics (this time of “Establishment”) to the Clintons and their allies. (January first brought the need to inform them that either candidate could earn President Barack Obama’s endorsement given their position on guns,Ìę, then a clarification as to why single payer, universal health care wouldn’t leave people without medical service.)

The Establishment is largely a case of, “You know it when you see it.” But should the Clintons, who may have a better grasp on power structures nationally than anyone else, need more guidance, here’s some.

First, a British (and common) definition includes financiers, industrialists and government leaders who hold power and exercise authority. In 1955, British journalist Henry Fairlie wrote: “By the Establishment, I do not only mean the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised.”

If one is truly puzzled, they can read In the Light of What We Know, a compelling novel that spans Oxford University to London bankers to Afghanistan’s reconstruction and examines power and elitism.

The leadership of Planned Parenthood can be considered establishment. Yes, Planned Parenthood may serve a poor trans person in Detroit, but Cecile Richards is far from that poor trans person. There’s no contradiction. Sure, the organization has been unfairly attacked by Republicans and does much good work. But that doesn’t negate the fact that many leaders of this and other such organizations have access to powerful people within our society. And that those connections often influence decisions by both.

To argue this, you would have to assert that Democratic (and some Republican) politicians—who weakened transparency of campaign financing and allowed for the export of crude oil—hold very little power. Politicians who influence billions or trillions of spending make such decisions, not ordinary Americans.

Planned Parenthood’s decision to endorse Hillary Clinton underlines this classification, as it is at odds with the voting preferences of a constituency of ’ platform, which helps them through a higher minimum wage, affordable health care and investment in schools.

OBSTACLES TO BERNIE’S VISIBILITY

The miraculous rise of Sanders has been in the context of an institutional blackout, which posed serious problems for his candidacy. Many of these institutions rely on funding by companies and the wealthy, who want to keep the gravy trail rolling despite its staggering cost to humanity and the Earth. So, Bernie has been kept out of the public eye.

Mainstream media: Sanders hadÌęÌęon ABC, CBS and NBC evening news during January to November 2015. In total, he received about 1% of all presidential candidate airtime. This is despite his candidacy being, arguably, the most important and interesting political story of last year. Clinton’s coverage, including Benghazi, totaled 230 minutes.

Even now, with Sanders ahead in both early states, much of the coverage is devoted to where Clinton went wrong and how she can win, while downplaying the very real messaging that has led to Bernie’s unprecedented campaign success.

Debates and the Democratic National Committee: Maybe that would be okay with 26 debates during the primary season, like in 2008. Unfortunately, the Democratic National Committee, arbitrarily under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, limited the debates to six, with several held during football games, holiday weekends or other inconvenient times. The one streamed by ABC left Internet viewers with repeated frozen screens during a significant portion of the event.

Funding: Another obstacle was self-imposed: no funding from super PACs or corporations. It was viewed as virtually impossible to raise money otherwise, but Sanders has managed to generate major funds, even surpassing Obama donations in 2012.

Politicians and institutions: Politicians have overwhelminglyÌę, including to curry favor or in fear of retaliation. This is despite major weaknesses in past policies of wealth inequality, foreign policy, financial reforms, climate change and health care.

THE LIBERAL VACUUM

But the greatest barrier to Sanders may be the framing of issues. Many of the truths that Bernie speaks of have been advanced by fringe progressive groups and activists, but largely ignored through more established institutional structures. There has been a blackout of truths relating to liberal, progressive and humanist ideals among many institutions that would describe themselves in those terms. In fact, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Chris Hedges’ 2010 book, Death of the Liberal Class, highlights this phenomenon.

Democratic socialism: Sanders uses the term to separate himself from rapacious capitalism and (imaginary) incremental progressivism of today. He has come under fire by the media and public for such branding. But the word “capitalism” has been appropriated to emphasize the free market with little regulation or attempts to redistribute wealth, except upward. Sanders better relates to Martin Luther King Jr’s definition, “Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of its wealth for all God’s children,” mixing private and public ownership like we have now.

When America is ignorant about Bernie Sanders and his/our issues, Hillary Clinton looks progressive. In contrast Bernie, who seeks systemic change based on global realities relating to human dignity, seems larger-than-life.

Ironically, the overuse of “socialist” with reference to Obama and the identification ofÌęÌęmay well help Bernie’s candidacy.

Colleges: Colleges often shy away from research and investments to address top challenges. So too do they fail to properly educate future leaders about gender equity, the environment, wealth inequality, climate change and the failures of globalization. They throw roadblocks to divesting billions of dollars to promote sustainability and justice, even while boards are populated by corporate and financial heavyweights. Over 250 colleges and universitiesÌę. We are told by alum and college leadership that they just want to cure cancer, even whileÌęand spend like a third, highly conservative political party.

This amounts to situations where many colleges participate on the margins of finding solutions to the great challenges of our time. Although an era of new student activism, including Bernie’s strong support, may herald change.

Think tanks: Think tanks in America often provide narrow framing of issues. They receive significant funding from members of corporate and government,ÌęÌęof Brookings donations over $50,000 from corporations or foreign governments.

Thus, when you look through their events, they seem almost written to quell your excitement and passion. If it puts fire in your belly, commitment in your heart or inspires you with its list of speakers, you are probably not at a popular Washington, DC think tank. They have rarely held the wealthy or corporations accountable, even as our oligarchic system of government stymied progressÌęafter about 400 people met and .

Ìęor something else, but it has been hard to find programs that seriously challenge America’s military industrial complex, war policy, Glass-Steagall repeal, wealth inequality and climate change goals versus a 1.5 to 2 degree Celsius limit, especially given the paramount importance of these issues over the last seven years.

Nothing Bernie says about our top challenges and solutions should be new. Thanks to a timid left-wing intelligentsia that has failed to discuss major policies in a way that will resonate.

“Establishment” nonprofits: Many of these organizations do good work. Yet they too accept money from corporations and hedge fund and private equity managers, and often have accepted growth as the byword it is in the private sector. They seek to measure “impact” (not inherently a bad thing) and thus “narrow their focus” (often not good). They shy away from policy advocacy on issues related to their mission (“not enough resources”) or actually change their mission or constituency to create “shared value.”

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton © Shutterstock

Peter Buffett has as “searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left,” rather than focusing on systemic change. Precisely what Sanders is advocating should be reflected in think tank and nonprofit advocacy, as issues of social justice and sustainability are the largest levers on planetary success and happiness.

Arts: So too have progressive ideals been drummed out of the arts and museums, which have also become increasingly corporatized. It is rare to see plays and exhibits featuring questions about morality and humanity like those common in Washington, DC in past decades—something acknowledged by theaters that ask where the politically-themed work has gone.

Barack Obama: At his last State of the Union, President Obama said that if he was a more skilled orator—in the manner of a Lincoln or Roosevelt—perhaps he could have brought the parties together. But he dodged an important truth: the president largely abandoned the bully pulpit for much of his two terms. We stopped hearing of the bankruptcies and problems with health care post-Obamacare; his measured advocacy on climate failed to be scientifically framed or close to what is needed; and he has failed to address the military-industrial complex, as just three examples.

Pope Francis’ address to Capitol Hill reminded us how a speech grounded in moral authority can inspire. It also highlighted Obama’s very real failure to diligently advance the progressive movement for much of his presidency. Yes, it would have involved alienating those corporations and the wealthy who do not prioritize the public interest. But they gave up on him and America first.

Media: A heavily war- and violence-oriented media, coupled with falsehoods of conservative stations, do not fill in these gaps of knowledge. Do people know that wealth concentration provides the cornerstone of Bernie’s speech—“the top one-tenth of 1% has as much wealth as the bottom 90%”—or dozens of other related facts, like the richest 62 individuals own as much as the bottom 3.5 billion globally? Do they understand the 2 degree Celsius limit recognized in 2009 in Copenhagen, recently at the G7 and reaffirmed (with focus on 1.5 degrees) in Paris versus aÌęwell within the realm of possibility that would be disastrous? That all 50 statesÌęby 2050? Do they know the number of health care-related bankruptcies in America, and medical costs in other nations?

Surely they should understand the risk to the planet and people posed by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), including energy and foodÌęthat have resulted fromÌęsuchÌę. Sanders has had to educate people about key issues and solutions.

Indeed, some organizations have been consistently strong advocates. Some nonprofits industries have sharpened their message and focus. And growing grassroots movements like Occupy and #BlackLivesMatter have advanced progress causes. But in many ways, we are living through an era of largely dismantled institutions that pose enormous obstacles to a humanist candidate, and to humanity.

HILLARY’S FAILED STRATEGY

When America is ignorant about Bernie Sanders and his/our issues, Hillary Clinton looks progressive. In contrast Bernie, who seeks systemic change based on global realities relating to human dignity, seems larger-than-life.

Hillary’s strategy has been poor but understandable, as she tries to deflect attacks on her positions and record. She has been mostly running against herself.

1) Be herself: This is what she was hoping to do throughout the entire election: run as a corporatist Democrat who was better than the Republicans. Yet against someone who is speaking Martin Luther King Jr’s “unarmed truths” from “unconditional love,” her tepid platform has left Democratic voters uninspired.

2) Adopt Bernie’s positions: Clinton has often seized upon Sanders’ positions and wording to deflect criticism, even changing her positions on TPP and Keystone a month before the first debate. Ultimately, this doesn’t pay off because they are at odds with decades of past experience, and wealthy and corporate funding.

3) Side with the president: Clinton pulls out her tight working relationship and false narratives with Obama when she’s in trouble. She cited what sounded like a landmark climate deal in Copenhagen after a joint adventure (); stood up for Obama whose Wall Street ties Sanders was supposedly really criticizing when he described Clinton’s links to Wall Street (sixth debate); and advertised “I’m with him” after the president gave a successful anti-gun violence speech. Unfortunately, Clinton’s record in the Obama administration is too hawkish and unsuccessful to use heavily.

4) Go on the Attack: Many attacks misrepresent the truth and have been unsuccessful. Hillary’s daughter, Chelsea Clinton, launched an irrational attack on Sanders on health care, and Hillary’s gun attacks often are non-sequitur statements with weak ties to reality. At times she makes misleading statements, implying she is more electable against Republicans (contradicted by polls) or has greater support from independents. Worst of all, these hugely anger Sanders supporters, who could provide key support in November.

Ultimately it would be nice to see a woman committed to equal pay and other priorities in the White House. But for women—who struggle with financial insecurity, corporate predation and recovering from the economic crash—and for others, it would be far better to have someone who can take on the central truths and challenges of their times.

It will be “tough sledding” for Bernie Sanders to win in South Carolina, said Vice President Biden. Fortunately it’s snowing there.

Supporters understand the overwhelming forces aligned against Sanders and celebrate his improbable successes. Generation X sings David Bowie’s Under Pressure to celebrate his recent great debate performance and his rebuttals. Millennials (among whom Bernie leads by 11 points) are presumably changing to Tinder taglines like, “Let’s break up the big banks!” Or, as Bowie said, which is reflective of a nation that has stood up for Sanders’ progressive movement. “We can be heroes, just for one day.”

Millennials and all believers in a better life for all, including Bernie, must be our heroes every day as we create a world of justice and sustainability.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / Ìę/Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post The Miracle of Bernie’s Candidacy: The Holiday Story You Won’t Be Told appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Count me among those puzzled by ’s recent endorsements and positioning. Clinton is now locked in a near-statistical with Vermont Senator for the Democratic presidential nomination, with many polls showing her trailing in both New Hampshire and Iowa. Unexpectedly, she has an enormous gender gap. YoungÌę over Clinton by 20 points.

This neck-to-neck race is all the more surprising given Clinton has received aboutÌę—and about one-quarter of the debates of eight years ago, reflecting failures of major democratic institutions.

Clinton has reacted to Sanders’ recent surge by accelerating her attacks. She is misrepresenting his positions, like implying his proposed investments are not paid for in his economic plan, and standing by her daughter’sÌęÌęthatÌęmillions of Americans could lose health care in the single payer health care system he recommends.

She has also allied herself with President Barack Obama in a misleading way (), capitalizing on his hugely popular speech that announced executive action on gun violence. A current Clinton ad tells viewers, “I’m with him” in standing up to the gun lobby. Yet the same day it was released, Vice President Joe Biden countered that either candidates’ position on gun violence could earn Obama’s endorsement—even while he called Clinton “relatively new” to issues of wealth disparity andÌętouted Sanders as credible and “.”

Of particular interestÌęare recentÌęalliances andÌępositioning, given the new electoral dynamics. Let’s firstÌęexamine the reality of endorsements.

Endorsement Truths

One might imagine endorsements would be made primarily on the basis of alignment of current and past policy positions, factoring in leadership considerations. Some organizations and individuals do meet and rigorously match up positions. And organizations from NARAL to the NRA rate politicians based on legislative scorecards.

Yet the process often works differently for Democratic front-runners. Consider the following:

1) Some people and organizations believe there is either a significant benefit—or a chance to avoid a major penalty—by endorsing a likely winner early in the process. And some establishment candidates expect it. Remember New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s office closing down lanes of the George Washington Bridge to foil constituents of Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, who endorsed Christie’s 2013 opponent?

2) Many believe the Clintons place a premium on fidelity. Think “Clinton loyalists.” In contrast, who would be a “Sanders loyalist?” A teacher in Duluth? A college student in South Carolina? A doctor in Long Island? Senator Elizabeth Warren?

3) Rarely is there as big a price to be paid for not endorsing number two, or endorsing that person late. A case in point: Clinton loyalist Rahm Emanuel backed Obama just days before the suspension of Hillary’s 2008 campaign, yet Emanuel became president’s first chief of staff.

A related example regarding alliances: #BlackLivesMatter protesters at a Bernie rally were met with a strong response from Sanders. Yet it was neither an attempt to ignore their issues, nor to coopt them. Instead, Sanders almost immediately hired an African American press secretary, Symone Sanders, who is well-versed in criminal justice reform and developed a plan to achieve racial justice, and has since expanded to include environmental justice. Think of the old Avis commercial: “We’re number two. We try harder.”

4) Wealthy members of the establishment often cultivate connections. Those in power at nonprofits and in politics may be able to offer politicians or organizational leaders a plum administration job. Or the relationship could be used to facilitate a child’s admission to a competitive private school, college or work. In addition, the organization’s decision to endorse is oftenÌęnot democratically determined from member votes.

The end result is often a system where winners (large organizations, establishment politicians) endorse winners. This quells democratic debate and further entrenches established candidates. And it worsens a system of patronage, political and otherwise. Sure, those who come close sometimes run again, like Maryland Representative Donna Edwards who garnered bigger endorsements on her second congressional run. But overall it weakensÌęour fragile democratic process.

Of course, alliances can be both beneficial and newsworthy. They can provide that “good housekeeping” stamp of approval for undecided voters and can bring in further money, outreach or visibility for either side. But if the endorsement of a candidate seems at odds with the values of a favored nonprofit or politician, it’s probably because it is. And if a lot of the establishment politicians and major nonprofits seem to be endorsing establishment candidates, it’s because they are. And if it seems poised to backfire, it may well be.ÌęThe systemÌęspeaks volumesÌęabout our political process, much less about qualifiedÌęcandidates.

Recent Endorsements and Positions

Major endorsements and repositioning on issues have already occurred in the two weeks of 2016.

1) MoveOn andÌęThe Nation: On January 12, the progressive nonprofit issued an endorsement of Sanders after he earned 79% of the 340,000 members’ votes. His margin, the largest in the history of MoveOn, won him an endorsement, which is only given to candidates with strong support.

Supporters see in Sanders a simple courage in discussing the basic, urgent truths of our society, even as they are ignored by the media.

MoveOn Executive Director Ilya Sheyman cited five reasons for the endorsement of Bernie Sanders: his standing up to corporate interests; his support for communities facing oppression; his unwillingness to accept permanent war; his electability based on turnout and polling; and his membership support. Moveon will mobilize members to get out the vote in early primary states.

The Nation, a “flagship of the political left,” endorsed Sanders on January 14, citing his “Ìę… that has inspired working people across this country.” Both seem logical.

2) Gun Violence: On January 12, Clinton accepted the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s endorsement. And last week, Obama announced that he wouldn’t support a candidate who didn’t back “common-sense gun reform.” That was viewed by many as a potential move toward a primary endorsement for Hillary Clinton, something that would be far from surprising given Obama’s 2012 re-election may well have been due to Bill Clinton’s famous convention “Do the Math” speech. Yet it seemed surprising that the US president would not factor in climate change, #BlackLivesMatter, economic inequality and other key Obama priorities that Sanders strongly advocates for in a manner consistent with his political history and funding.

Obama quickly clarified that he was not making a primary endorsement. Nonetheless, Clinton started running ads on January 12 that touted her commitment to gun violence prevention and her alignment with the president, prompting Vice President Biden to step in.

One would imagine that Clinton, who has anointed herself a movement leader on this issue, would advance a broad philosophy through bold positions. Sanders’ focus on wealth inequality informs his thinking on and framing of issues from austerity to the environment to banking to racial justice to health care. One would similarly expect Clinton to tie gun violence to the #BlackLivesMatter movement byÌęhighlighting the deaths of kids and adults in brutal police shootings, which are rarely punished. One would expect that she would speak to how gangs provide vigilante justice when the police and criminal justice fail communities.

© Shutterstock

So too might one expect her to make the issue international by highlighting the deaths associated with our arms deals. Although thatÌęmight be uncomfortable, according to a :

“IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012 [when Clinton was secretary of state], State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the [Clinton] [F]oundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration. The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such asÌęÌę,Ìę, theÌę, andÌę, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses.”

Many of the weapons we sell or give away have been lost; many have gone to terrorist groups. Even when they remain in the hands ofÌęrecipient governments—like the Saudis, who have received arms through a series of enormous military deals—they are sometimes usedÌętoÌękillÌęcivilians of another nation or to intimidate their own citizens.

Finally, as a leader on this issue,ÌęClinton would be expected to share truths regarding an American culture of hypermasculinity and violence. To highlight the psychological effects of hours of entertainment spent shooting other individuals or watching them being shot in video games, as well as our current crop of highly graphic spy and crime shows. No dice.

3) Planned Parenthood: On January 7, Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed Hillary Clinton as itsÌęfirst primary endorsement in its 100-year history. This too came as a surprise. Women of childbearing age, presumably their primary constituency, are probably equally well-served through direct positions endorsed by each Democratic candidate. In fact, Sanders has a NARAL rating of 100%.

Yet the Planned Parenthood constituency of women will benefit far more from Sanders’ policies because of their strength in addressing issues of class, race and social justice to end a reality in which the top one-tenth Ìęof 1% have as much wealth as the bottom 90%. The favoritism toward Sanders by young women of 20 points shows they think this way too. It will be interesting to see if these organizations or Clinton benefit or lose more from the alliance;ÌęSanders’Ìęsupporters of furyÌęand a reluctance to fund the organization.

It is also worth noting that Lily Adams, the daughter of Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards, worked on the campaign and in the press office of Senator Tim Kaine, who is considered a potential running mate for Clinton, should she win the nomination. Adams currently works for the Clinton campaign in Iowa.

At the State of the Union address on January 12, President Obama paraphrased the first part of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s quote: “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”

Supporters see in Sanders a simple courage in discussing the basic, urgent truths of our society, even as they are ignored by the media. A man whose solutions come from a place of uncorrupted and unconditional love. And a person who, through that embodiment, can tackle forces of deep political and corporate corruption toÌętransform our society.

Supporters instinctively trust, admire and follow him. And that’s why many believe the nonexistent media coverage, the challenges of standing up to new field organizations, the flurries of misleading ads and statements, and the perplexing endorsements can be overcome. They believe the truth and unconditional love in Bernie Sanders’ candidacy willÌęreign triumphant.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post Hillary’s Recent Positions and Endorsements: Say What? appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

On January 5, gave the most important speech by a presidential candidate this campaign season. The topic: Wall Street and the economy.

“Greed is not good,” proclaimed Sanders, riffing on Gordon Gekko’s famous pronouncement in the movie Wall Street, just miles from that financial center. “In fact, the greed of Wall Street and corporate America is destroying the fabric of our nation. And here is a New Year’s Resolution that I will keep if elected president. If you do not end your greed, we will end it for you.”

The bold speech addressed a topic that should be a main focus of debate, particularly during the race for the presidency. The 2008 financial crash caused a recession that is wiping out $6 to $36 trillion from America’s economy. Yet the talk received scant media coverage.

It’s hard to attribute this to recent high-visibility events.ÌęÌęof the media. Yet since colleges, Congress, liberal think tanks, the mainstream media and both parties embrace financial donors—even while failing to investigate causes of the crash or working to prevent the next one—his message is all the more potent.

Particularly so given his competitiveness. The populist Sanders leads in the first primary state of New Hampshire, draws strong millennia support, excels at grassroots fundraising, and polls better than Hillary Clinton against Republicans.

Sanders delivered the speech with a scope and framing that is rare in American politics and academics. His revolutionary speech illustrated how to transform our economy for greater safety, security and growth.

A darker-hued Senator Sanders did the introduction. “The black community lost 50% of the wealth it had accumulated since slavery between the years 2008 to 2012,” said New York State Senator James Sanders. “[For] the Latino community, this was the greatest loss of wealth since Christopher Columbus, the greatest loss of Asian wealth since the internment camps, the greatest loss of Native American wealth since the Trail of Tears, the greatest loss of white wealth since the Great Depression.”

Sanders started with a focus on inequality: “[The American people] understand that something is profoundly wrong when, in our country today, the top one-tenth of 1% own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, and when the 20 richest people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans—half of our population.”

He provided seven points that represent the most effective plan of any presidential candidate. They include ending “Too Big” for-consequences excuses, bank corruption and conflicts of interest.

Bernie Sanders © Shutterstock

ENDING “TOO BIG TO FAIL”

Wall Street has grown since taxpayers bailed out “Too-Big-To-Fail” banks. But Sanders will end the only socialism bankers love.

“Within the first 100 days of my administration, I will require the secretary of the Treasury Department to establish a ‘Too-Big-to Fail’ list of commercial banks, shadow banks and insurance companies whose failure would pose a catastrophic risk to the United States economy without a taxpayer bailout,” said Sanders.

“Within one year, my administration will break these institutions up so that they no longer pose a grave threat to the economy as authorized under Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act.”

ThisÌę. Sanders also pledges to work to reinstate a “21^stÌęCentury Glass Steagall Act,” a position backed by Robert Reich, former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton.

Finally, Sanders shot down ’s oft-reiterated focus on shadow banking as the major problem. She uses it to oppose reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed under her husband’s administration. Clinton claims the law would not have prevented the financial crisis because of the role of shadow banks. Sanders corrected her: they gambled with federally-insured bank deposits from commercial banks.

ENDING “TOO BIG TO JAIL”

Americans are deeply disillusioned because a two-tiered criminal justice system keeps all major Wall Street executives safe from prosecution for their role in the Great Recession, even as marijuana smokers go to jail. This will change, Sanders said, as his administration embraces “Equal Justice Under the Law.”

THE BUSINESS MODEL ON WALL STREET IS A FRAUD

Frequent news about enormous fines and settlements reflect “reckless, unfair and deceptive activities.”

“The reality is that fraud is the business model on Wall Street,” Sanders said. “It is not the exception to the rule. It is the rule. And, in a weak regulatory climate, the likelihood is that Wall Street gets away with a lot more illegal behavior than we know of.”

In fact, according to Sanders, big American financial institutions have been fined $204 billion in the last seven years. He reviewed stories of the Bank of America settling for $16 billion for misleading investors on risky mortgage-backed securities, and JP Morgan settling for $13 billion over charges it sold similarly low-quality securities. He read headlines of banks rigging currencies, allegedly fixing precious metal prices, participating in widespread mortgage fraud, laundering billions for Mexican drug gangs, and illegal foreclosing on military service members.

Sanders finds it unacceptable that Americans pay $4 or $5 at the ATM and pay credit card interest rates as much as 20-30%.Ìę“The Bible has a term for this practice. It’s called usury…

Sanders also highlighted many studies showing immoral acts are commonplace. In one, almost 20% of financial service professionals believed that illegal or unethical activity is critical to success.

“Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters,” said one Standard & Poors analyst.

Sanders pledges to nominate government leaders who will stand up to Wall Street power.

TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATION

Sanders would tax Wall Street speculators to discourage high-risk behavior and encourage productive economic investment. The revenue will be used to provide free public college tuition.

REFORM CREDIT RATING AGENCIES

Sanders cited evaluations paid for by Wall Street that led to mortgage-backed derivatives receiving triple-A ratings as a key cause of the crash. No more.

“Under my administration, we will turn for-profit credit rating agencies into nonprofit institutions, independent from Wall Street. No longer will Wall Street be able to pick and choose which credit agency will rate their products.”

CAP CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATE AND ATM FEES

Sanders finds it unacceptable that Americans pay $4 or $5 at the ATM and pay credit card interest rates as much as 20-30%.Ìę“The Bible has a term for this practice. It’s called usury. And in The Divine Comedy, Dante reserved a special place in the Seventh Circle of Hell for those who charged people usurious interest rates.

“Today, we don’t need the hellfire and the pitchforks, we don’t need the rivers of boiling blood, but we do need a national usury law.”

Sanders calls for a $2 cap on ATM fees and 15% maximum interest rate on credit card and consumer loans—the latter already being law for credit unions.

ALLOW POST OFFICES TO OFFER BANKING SERVICES

The lack of banking access by millions of low-income Americans often lead them to rely on extremely expensive payday loans that trap them in a cycle of debt. Sanders will fight to have community post offices provide banking services.

REFORMING THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Bernie Sanders reiterated his position that the Federal Reserve should be responsive to ordinary Americans. “I think the American people would be shocked to learn that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, served on the board of the New York Fed at the same time that his bank received a $391 billion bailout from the Federal Reserve. That is a clear conflict of interest that I would ban as president.”

Sanders also wants to end the Federal Reserve paying interest to financial institutions, which has contributed to 1,000 times more banking reserves since the crash. The money could instead be loaned to small businesses to create jobs.

The presidential candidate reiterated his call to make the economy work for all Americans. “And so my message to you today is straightforward: If elected president, I will rein in Wall Street so they can’t crash our economy again,” he said. “Will they like me? No. Will they begin to play by the rules if I’m president? You better believe it.

“Thank you and I look forward to working with the most powerful force in our great nation—not the Barons of Wall Street, but the people our government was created to serve.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / Ìę/Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post The Most Important Presidential Campaign Speech: Bernie on the Banks appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

It would certainly be easy to do a piece about ten horrible events from 2015—from the ongoing war in Syria and the refugee crisis, to the attacks in Beirut, Paris and San Bernardino, to the rise of Donald Trump and Islamophobia. But that wouldn’t be a very inspiring way to bid farewell to this year and usher in a new one. So let’s look at ten reasons to feel better about 2015.

1) Iran nuclear deal: Despite significant political opposition and millions of dollars spent to try quash the deal, the nuclear agreement with Iran was passed, and the possibility of another US military entanglement was narrowly avoided. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful lobby, had its wings clipped, as did Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu (except that the deal unfortunately came with a payoff of even more US tax dollars going to the Israeli military).

2) Cuba thaw: It’s official: The US and Cuba now have embassies in each other’s territory for the first time in over half a century. The year has been marked by a United Nations meeting between Raul Castro and Barack Obama, more travelers to Cuba and more trade between both countries . But Congress still needs to lift the trade embargo, fully lift the travel ban and return the Guantanamo naval base to the Cubans.

3) Keystone pipeline: After years of stellar grassroots activism against the Keystone pipeline (and years of lobbying by the oil companies), President Obama finally took the side of the activists (and the planet) by shutting down the project. And while the Paris climate talks we need to stop global climate chaos, they did raise consciousness and move the global community in the right direction.

4) The Black Lives Matter movement gets results: This incredible uprising has forced issues of racial injustice into the national spotlight and created real reforms within communities across America. The Movement for Black Lives got its momentum in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, and spread throughout the nation. Cops have been convicted, police chiefs have been ousted, citizen review boards have been empowered, confederate flags have come down, buildings named after racists have been renamed and presidential candidates have been forced to talk about race. Kudos to the many young black activists leading the way.

5) Canada welcomes refugees: While Donald Trump threatens to ban Muslims from the US, newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau showed the rest of the world how a country can open its doors—and hearts—to Syrian refugees. Trudeau and other smiling officials welcomed the first batch of Syrian refugees with flowers, toys, clothing, goodwill and the heartfelt declaration, “You are home.” “We get to show the world how to and welcome in people who are fleeing extraordinarily difficult situations … because weÌę a Canadian not by a skin color or a language or a religion or a background, but by a shared set of values, aspirations, hopes and dreams,” Trudeau.

6) Jeremy Corbyn heads the British Labour Party: Running on an anti-war, anti-austerity and pro-refugee platform, longtime progressive parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn earned a whopping 59% of his party’s votes. In with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, Corbyn voiced his support for diplomacy and his aversion to airstrikes in the Middle East: “I want a world of peace. I’m not interested in bombs. I’m not interested in wars. I’m interested in peace.” Wouldn’t that be nice to hear from Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi?

7) Same-sex marriage was legalized in the US: In a landmark and long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage a federal right. On June 26, the LGBTQ community and its allies rejoiced and took the streets to celebrate the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. While there have been some minor setbacks since then (primarily due to bigots like Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis), there is no turning back now.

8) Ten years of BDS wins: The non-violent, non-sectarian, Palestinian-led movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel has seen a decade of victories. Key this year was the by the European Union that goods produced on land seized in the 1967 war must be labeled “Made in Settlements” (not “Made in Israel”), which will deprive Israel the corresponding tax benefits. The former Israeli intelligence chief, Shabtai Shavit, is that BDS has become a “critical” challenge to Israel, while former Prime Minister Ehud Barak admits it is reaching a “tipping point.” In a desperate attempt to counter the momentum of BDS, Israeli Embassy officials in Washington, DC sent holiday gifts exclusively to the White House this year.

9) Marijuana becomes mainstream: What a year of momentum to end America’s disastrous war on drugs and mass incarceration. Marijuana is now legal in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon and Washington, DC. California and others will hit the ballot box in 2016 to hopefully push us on marijuana legalization. Obama, the first president to visit a prison, spoke out forcefully and for criminal justice reform, and he is helping formerly incarcerated people re-enter society by “” Ìęfor those applying for federal jobs.

10) Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign: The energy that Bernie Sanders has mobilized, especially among young progressives, has been phenomenal. While the media is obsessed with Trump, droves of people have been flocking to hear Bernie talk about breaking up big banks, a financial transaction tax to make college education free, single-payer health care and other ideas to make our society more just. Wouldn’t it be great if this movement could continue after the race is over?

So while this holiday season the nation is obsessed with the latest Donald Trump insult and the special effects of Star Wars, may we bring in the new year truly striking back at the injustices of the empire. May the force be with the grassroots activists trying to build a more peaceful world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post 10 Good Things About the Not-So-Great 2015 appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Last week brought near-universal condemnation of Republican presidential candidate for calling for a “total and complete” ban on Muslims entering the United States. From British Prime Minister David Cameron to actor George Takei, and from President Barack Obama to House Speaker Paul Ryan, leaders condemned vitriolic Trump speech.

Yet hidden in the near-universal criticism of the right-wing demagogue is both the role the media have played in his rise, and its cost to American values. The media have enjoyed the ratings buzz of covering Trump’s misogynistic, racist trumpeting of hate.ÌęThe Ìęwas, until recently, best known politically for questioning Obama’s US citizenship as a leader of the harebrained “birther” movement (no disrespect intended to those fuzzy animals).

As a candidate, the media have breathlessly covered the following: Trump implying that supporters who targeted a for a beating were “passionate”;Ìęhis brutal imagery of a bloodied Fox News anchor after her probing debate questions; his calling Vietnam War veteran Senator John McCain a “loser”; and his statement that a #BlackLivesMatter protester at his rally who was punched and kicked “should [maybe] have been roughed up.”

Donald Trump’s hate-filled pronouncements have attracted media frenzy, with The Huffington Post even putting him on their “Entertainment” page, despiteÌę

More recently, Trump has incited hatred against American Muslims by describingÌęof thousands in New Jersey. Trump has also said he wasn’t sure if he would have supported or opposed theÌęÌęduring World War II, and he has called for a database of Muslims.

Media Time

Now,Ìę, media outlets are “shocked 
 shocked 
 to find that Trump has been outspokenly xenophobic!” (Corporation: “Your advertising dollars.” Media: “Oh, thank you very much.”)

A recent study of ABC, CBS, and NBC news programs foundÌę versus just ten for , with a comparable 81 minutes to 20 seconds on ABC’s “World News Tonight.” This despite both candidates’ often similar polling results and the fact that SandersÌęÌęincluding Trump.

For Bernie Sanders, it has seemed like a case study of Mahatma Gandhi’s famous quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” The news media have mostly focused on ignoring him, albeit rarely mocking him forÌęor living relatively cheaply.

And that has shaped our national descent into hate- and violence-filled debate. Last week, when Trump spoke of the amoral, unlawful abrogation of Muslims’ rights, former Japanese-American internment camp residentÌę. He recited the results of a congressional study which found that the internment happened in the context of three things: racial prejudice, war hysteria and lack of political leadership.

Bernie’s alternate and compelling “political leadership” has drawn overflow crowds, record donors and heavy millennia support. Yet a message that could trump the Trump is virtually muted by for-profit media.

In Sanders’ quest to “make America great again” (although he’d never adopt as trite a motto), he implicitly targets the actions of a specific demographic, like Trump. The decisions of powerful white males in legislative and corporate positions have led to a massive deterioration of financial security and dignity for many Americans. Sanders also advocates returning, in some ways, to an earlier era.

At the center of the Vermont senator’s campaign is reversing income and wealth inequality. TheÌętop one-tenth of the as the bottom 90% of America, as he frequently says. (Those richest have aboutÌęÌęthan they did in the late 1970s.)

Sanders supports reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, whose repeal played a key role in the financial implosion that is costing America $6 to $36 trillion. He supports a living wage of $15 per hour to boost stagnating salaries, and the public funding of higher education that has skyrocketed in price. He advocates an end to austerity and the (TPP). He has a.ÌęHe supports divestment of fossil fuels, promotes what he calls “real family values” and endorses affordable health care.

These are policies consistent with decades of his congressional leadership prioritizing the American people over the corporations whose money he doesn’t accept.

Listening to his blisteringly accurate analysis is revelatory. At his September Prince William County rally, a friend turned to me and said, “This is why they don’t let him on TV.”

Over the last few months, he has expanded the scope of his bold proposals addressing key challenges.

Sanders introduced bills in Congress toÌę by 80%Ìęby 2050 through a carbon fee (aÌęmechanism backed by climate leaderÌę), and aÌęsimilarly aggressive .ÌęHeÌęvisited Ìęand compared it to an impoverished part of a Third World country, and he has added an environmental violence to his platform to end racial justice. Sanders has called forÌę who delayed the releaseÌęof a video showing Chicago teenager Laquan McDonald’s brutal death. He has called for anÌęend to .

The narratives of other Republican presidential candidates, who cumulatively have totaled about half of Trump’s coverage, have been weak and. The exception is on foreign policy, in which their violent statements feed Islamic State propaganda and likelyÌę.

And Clinton?

, who racked up about half of Trump’s coverage (outside her secretary of state controversies), grudgingly and half-heartedly has accepted some progressive positions.

She announced her opposition to the Keystone XL and the TPP just a month before the first Democratic debate, with her narrow opposition to the trade agreement seeming to allow a change in position. Her plans for the banks and #BlackLivesMatter issues have gaping holes. She has whitewashed the narrative of the financial crisis toÌędownplay the significant role of husband Bill ClintonÌęwhile president. She is trying to carve a middle path to victory that won’t stop corporate and wealthy donors allied with her family from giving, including financial and military companies.

But this leaves many Americans confused as to her true priorities. Even while she has called for a “movement” to prevent gun violence, she has adopted moderate positions, many of which are backed by Sanders. She has drifted from topic to topic, presenting policies not anchored in basic truths and injustices of our country. Hillary Clinton, despite what she’d like to believe, is not the anti-Trump.

This plays out in the context of the heavily biased Democratic National Committee (DNC) leadership, with a history of making decisions to favor Clinton over Sanders. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz—a Clinton supporter—has severely limited debates, which also occur at inconvenient times.

The decision hurt Sanders hard given his virtual media blackout. On December 18, just weeks before the first primaries, the DNC imposed a ban of indeterminate duration on the Sanders’ campaign accessing the voter database, based on Sanders’ staffers accessing Clinton’s information during a security failure. It was quickly reversed after a , who assert that they stood to lose $600,000 per day in donations. The Sanders campaign calls for an independent audit of the DNC.

As for now, let’s work to keep America off the path of discrimination and violence. Say it, mainstream media: “The top one-tenth of the 1% has as much as the bottom 90%.” Cover that and other basic policy truths of the Sanders’ campaign, and inform us of his inspiring, realistic solutions to create justice and opportunity for all.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ìę/Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post The High Cost of Ignoring Bernie Sanders appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

The Wall Street Journal claimed in a that US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ campaign proposals may cost the government about $18 trillion over ten years.

Chief among those expenses is Sanders’ intention to establish a universal single-payer health care system, which The Journal, citing a study done by economist Gerald Friedman, said would cost about $15 trillion.

The Journal is right that Sanders’ proposals would require plenty of money, and the quoted figures are fairly accurate. But the newspaper conveniently forgot how much the proposals can also save, both in the short- and long-terms.

For starters, having a single-payer can dramatically increase the efficiency of the American health care system and increase the consumer’s bargaining power against the powerful pharmaceutical industry.

In this video, Friedman explains why Bernie Sanders’ proposals would save, rather than cost, money.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:  / 

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post Bernie’s Health Care Proposal Saves Money appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Are US presidential debates best viewed as competitions? Ideally they move the national dialogue forward by challenging candidates on critical policies. Debates that run well push politicians into uncomfortable territory. Those with well-rehearsed (and often misleading) answers may struggle less, but voters see through such performances.

We saw that in 2012, when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney during debates, yet lost the election.

We saw this again on October 13, when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeatedly misrepresented her history and positions. Americans saw through it. Numerous focus groups and polls declared Bernie Sanders the strong winner.

But Clinton gave enough of a performance to allow a corrupt mainstream media to give her glowing reviews.

In a Facebook poll, . On Twitter, he was mentioned more, gained more followers and had a higher percentage of positive tweets than Clinton. He won focus groups and polls from Time, Slate, CNN, Fox News and many others. —including NPR, The New York Times, The Guardian, Vox and The Boston Globe—said or implied Clinton did better, often by a lot.

Why? Media organizations were likely responding according to Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s . The highly concentrated mass media includes CNN, who buried polling showing Sanders had won andÌę. Parent company Time Warner was Senator Clinton’s seventh biggest financial contributor.

CNN and other networks ’ follow-up to his dismissal of the importance of Clinton’s emails, which involved criticizing the media’s campaign coverage. Debate analysis biased against Sanders also likely reflects the they believe will win.

Of specific note to the mass media was Clinton’s assertiveness. A New York Times article cited her “, an aggressiveness her rivals did not seen ready for.”

It’s true: few were prepared for her “crisp answers.” But that’s because her record as a moderate, her weak foreign policy decisions and recent policy flip flops should have cast a pall over her debate performance. So instead she made stuff up. Some particularly egregious cases are below.

Trans-Pacific Partnership

Moderator Anderson Cooper’s first question to Clinton was asking her about whether she changed positions “based on political expediency,” citing new stances on same-sex marriage, immigration and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which she earlier called the “gold standard.”

In response Clinton explained: “I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards.”

The reality is Clinton said it “set the gold standard” (in fact, she as secretary of state.) And she must have known this: Less than a week before the debate, she put out a indicating opposition to the TPP. But her well-crafted debate story sounded better, despite its falsity.

Climate

After presidential candidate Martin O’Malley discussed his plan for a 100% clean energy grid by 2050, Clinton was on the defensive. She had said, “I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone,” about the pipeline she opposed less than a month ago.

So in a technique she would use repeatedly, she pulled in President Barack Obama. She described how the two of them were “hunting for the Chinese” in a convention center in 2009 and “marched up, broke in” before signing them up to the first international agreement on climate change.

Haven’t heard of it? Not surprising, few have, given the 2009 Copenhagen Summit is “widely perceived to be one of the in recent history.” An international adventure with a win for American leadership sounds good. Even if it really wasn’t.

The Banks

After months of being criticized for her lack of support for re-implementing the Glass-Steagall Act, Clinton put forth a proposal on how to deal with the banks. This came out just five days before the debate.

When Anderson Cooper asked her about her lack of support for Glass-Steagall, she mentioned the document few would likely have reviewed. She referred to it as “more comprehensive” and distinguished herself as taking on “shadow banking,” saying others “may be missing the forest for the trees.”

The reality is her . First, shadow banking is an integral part of the banking system, such that addressing too-big-to-fail institutions includes tackling oversized investment banks.

Second, while her plan allows for regulators to act when banks exceed a certain threshold, it’s unclear whether she would do so, especially given the largesse she has as campaign donations and speaking fees. So she promoted a weaker position with confidence and hand-waving.

Edward Snowden

When asked about Edward Snowden’s return to the United States, Clinton indicated he should be tried, saying: “He could have been a whistleblower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.”

Norman Solomon, the executive director at the Institute for Public Advocacy, disagreed on Democracy Now, saying Clinton “.” He cited similar incidents by Jeffrey Sterling, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, and Thomas Drake, a National Security Agency whistleblower, which “marked them for persecution and prosecution.”

Solomon went on to say: “[T]he idea that Hillary Clinton was floating, that somehow there are channels for whistleblowers to go through in the so-called national security arena as whistleblowers, that is ridiculous. And either she was being mendacious or ignorant, or some combination.”

Again, Clinton spoke confidently, yet incorrectly.

Any 15-year-old kid can deliver a good speech. Any debater can maintain a façade of confidence while misrepresenting reality. Mitt Romney did so repeatedly. But on October 13, the American people were not fooled. Even as mainstream media pretended to be.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ìę/Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę. Ìę

The post Hillary Clinton’s Duplicity and Media Complicity appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

The polling data, media coverage and recent meetings highlight a key question: Which US presidential candidate is the best for minorities, women and all of us?

Off the list: Republicans, with their destructive policies against these groups and strongly biased views toward the wealthy and corporations.

In the Democratic field, Hillary Clinton leads, with particularly strong support African Americans and women. Yet her support has steadily eroded, as Bernie Sanders gained 18% in a month and now leads in some New Hampshire primary polls.

Each voter will select a candidate in the primary and general elections based on many factors. One will be their policy positions as described in statements, on their website or exemplified throughout their career. Included will be an assessment of their potential to lead movements for change on issues they champion. Citizens will weigh other factors like perceived loyalty to corporations, other allies or specific donors. Also factored in may be their likeability, electability, identification, leadership ability and character.

The below evaluation of second-time Green Party presidential candidate , Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders suggests that Sanders and Stein hold the greatest promise as presidents.

A look at one phenomenon is telling. Democratic candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders were interrupted a month ago by #BlackLivesMatter activists at a Netroots Nation event. O’Malley and Sanders, whose campaigns are broadly supportive of class issues relating to inequality, responded poorly. Yet both have since taken substantial steps to focus on racial inequities—Sanders through policies addressing four of violence and O’Malley with a nine-page document: “A Reinvestment and Rehabilitation Framework for America’s Criminal Justice System” (compared ).

Clinton’s recent interaction with #BlackLivesMatter activists was scheduled. In this light, it was particularly unimpressive. The former secretary of state came across defensive and patronizing, , “I don’t believe you change hearts” (later backtracking on this) and then pushed the nascent movement—which has found major success in raising the awareness of police brutality—to devise its own solutions. Instead, one might have expected her to draw on her strong connections to African American community leaders and to think tanks, or simply mimic her competitors’ plans.

All current candidates benefit from President Barack Obama’s righting of our economic ship. Yet we remain in a state of crisis—with broad attacks on voter rights, defunding of reproductive health, a floundering war policy, decades of stagnating incomes, rampant underemployment and vicious racism and sexism. It feels like the turbulence of the 1960s is here today. Many of the challenges are the same. Energetic movements (such as Occupy and #BlackLivesMatter) have pushed candidates to broadly frame our challenges and boldly chart our future.

Nine key areas are assessed below, with three candidates’ positions evaluated mainly based on their websites. These issues affect all Americans. Although those particularly vulnerable to policies that magnify inequities and chip away at social programs are those with less power and privilege in our society: families and individuals who struggle or fail to afford life’s basics and are paid less for their work, or those who are targeted due to gender, race and/or sexuality.

1) Campaign financing

Due to inequality that no one favors and the Citizens United and other court decisions, the wealthy and corporations have influence in shaping . White, male-run institutions and wealth dominate our “democracy.” For example, than 400 families have provided half the election financing. In response to the need for reform on this overarching issue, Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig is a campaign to run as a referendum president. His first (and last) task would be getting pass the Citizens Equality Act of 2017. At the core of this bill is a substantial move toward publicly-financed elections.

Jill Stein does not take corporate money, and she favors public campaign and other steps for a representative democracy.

Bernie Sanders also does not accept corporate money. He has introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and he voted for transparency. He promised that Supreme Court nominees will pledge to overturn that landmark Supreme Court decision.

Hillary Clinton has in Wall Street and large donor money. She has accepted—personally or through her charities—major donations from foreign governments and big corporations, including Goldman Sachs, while to get grassroots donors. While her website seems to indicate support for similar priorities, its weird makes her role unclear: “The next president should appoint Supreme Court justices,” and undoing damage of Citizens United should end “even if it takes a constitutional amendment.”

2) Wall Street Reform

Seven years ago, Wall Street caused a financial crash that led to a doubling of the gap between minorities and whites, which even from 2010 to 2013. This was due in part to minorities having more assets tied up in their homes and their targeting for subprime loans (even after decades of predatory lending and unfair housing policies). The poor and middle-class also suffered from the crash-driven economic downturn. It was a major of a growing deficit that helped make the (misguided) case for damaging, counterproductive austerity measures targeting food stamps, public education and other spending with high social payoffs.

Bernie Sanders © Shutterstock

Bernie Sanders is up with Senator Elizabeth Warren to co-sponsor a bill that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act to break up eight of America’s largest banks for improved economic stability. He has also sponsored a tax on financial transactions that would target the very wealthy.

Jill Stein also favors breaking up the big banks, and she supports publicly-run local banks and “fair taxation” of Wall Street.

Hillary Clinton, seemingly on the defensive, used Facebook to support cracking down on individual criminal bankers and expanding Dodd-Frank protections. But would those positions prevent the next crash or the further accumulation of wealth by those responsible for the Great Recession?

3) International Affairs and War

Expansive and expanding war where, increasingly, the world is our battlefield is a failed foreign policy. And we have seen major diplomatic wins under Secretary of State John Kerry: normalizing relations with Cuba and the Iran nuclear deal. Our wars have resulted in American weapons being used against us; bombings that create enemies; an illegal invasion that killed (proportionately) the equivalent of everyone in Los Angeles and New York; and violent extremism by the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and al-Shabab. Soldiers and their families serve and suffer. So too do these wars contribute to an ideology of violence against darker-skinned people. And the enormous expenditure redirects funds that could go toward inner city, job training and social programs.

Hillary Clinton has a of hawkish behavior as secretary of state that she has continued in her run. She does support the Iran deal. She promotes accountability with China and boldness with Vladimir Putin, as well as alliances and partnerships on her website—although it is unclear specifically what this means. She supports Israel, saying: “If you challenge Israel’s security, you challenge America’s security.”

Bernie Sanders opposed the war in Iraq and argued for a limited US role. He recently gave an impressive foreign policy to a panel of economists that challenged Greek austerity, highlighted a history where democracies’ failures have led to the rise of the far right, and reviewed the role of Goldman Sachs and the plight of Puerto Rico. Yet he has a way to go to spell out other foreign policy priorities.

Jill Stein’s foreign policy would be grounded in “international law, human rights and diplomacy,” including limiting weapons’ sales overall and to human rights violators. She calls Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government war criminals. She favors a 50% or more cut in military spending, in part due to its outsized role in discretionary spending that could be directed to other public priorities.

4) Racial Justice

Racial justice must address the over 5,000 killed by over-militarized police departments this millennium—disproportionately black—with little accountability. #BlackLivesMatter has highlighted killings of African Americans and anniversaries of their deaths, and it has pushed for an end to such violence. But clearly, policies must go beyond providing basic bodily sanctity to promoting economic opportunity, restoring voting rights and destroying institutional barriers that have led to severe poverty.

And while this in no way the primary reason to address issues uniquely harmful to one community, models from the inner city have been exported into broader American sphere: subprime lending, urban poverty, misogynistic and violent music, low food quality, high crime, widespread drug use and police brutality.

© Shutterstock

After being confronted by #BlackLivesMatter activists, Bernie Sanders hired criminal justice advocate Symone Sanders as national press secretary and has released a to “[address] the four central types of violence waged against black and brown Americans”: physical, political, legal and economic violence. His website spells out the disproportionate effects on each: of force and steps to reforming policing institutions; of political barriers and obstacles to voting; of legal violence and prison system; and of economic inequity and poverty and opportunity. He is introducing legislation to for-profit prisons.

Jill Stein’s website is much less thorough—perhaps because of limited resources—and calls out an “end to policy brutality, mass incarceration and institutional racism.” She supports halving military spending, creating living wage jobs, “effective” anti-poverty programs and other policies. She deserves credit for endorsing policies consistent with peace and humanism, despite not explicitly and thoroughly addressing racial inequity.

Despite having much higher polling numbers with African Americans and ties to the community, Hillary Clinton seemed unprepared for a scheduled meeting with #BlackLivesMatter activists. She has broadly framed some issues with disproportionate traffic stops, criminal charges and prison terms and promotes policies, including mandatory body cameras. But overall, she appears weak on issues that she was expected to have been extraordinarily strong on.

5) Climate Change

Six years ago, world leaders pledged to respect science, indicating the world should warm no more than 2 degrees. The commitment was reaffirmed at the G7 meeting. Despite positive steps by President Obama, we are currently on a path to apocalyptic climate change. It will disproportionately affect women and the poor, particularly in the absences of government policies to provide clean water, healthy food and shelter. Globally, about 60 million individuals were displaced in 2014, in part due to the climate, and we just our hottest month.

The 2-degree target nationally could be reached by changing our food choices or our system. Building a renewable energy infrastructure and ending extreme energy extraction—like the Alberta tar sands that would go through the Keystone XL Pipeline—would also be key, as would a widely touted carbon tax.

Jill Stein of the Green Party supports a “Green New Deal”: a transition to 100% wind, water and solar energy by 2030. She supports an end to mountaintop removal, fracking and tar sand extraction. She also supports ending use of GMO foods and pesticides till proven safe, and GMO labeling.

Bernie Sanders opposed the Keystone XL pipeline, supports of fossil fuels and does not take contributions from these companies, and he sponsored a carbon tax in the Senate.

Hillary Clinton was until recently mostly mute on effective solutions, although she favored more fees and royalties on fossil fuel companies. Lately she has been bolder. She has announced her plans to put America on a path for every home to be powered by renewables by 2027, which has been rightfully lauded, but she has not pledging limit fossil fuels extraction which, absent other plans, will be necessary to meet the limit. She has spoken out against Arctic drilling.

6) Human Rights, Basic Services and Opportunity

In the rich nation on America, people struggle for life’s basics and economic opportunity. Housing, clean water, food and affordable health care are often a dream. The minimum is rarely a living wage, stripped down benefits have created what Jacob Hacker calls “The Great Risk Shift,” and predatory corporate schemes often go unchecked. While the Affordable Care Act has widened coverage, health care-related bankruptcies, unjustifiable and excessive pricing, and insurance errors continue to undermine affordability and access. Gun violence is common. Corporate influence over government, continued forces for greater inequality and climate change make these issues paramount.

We have experienced potentially one of the largest non-war time declines in public health, with of all Americans are on two more medications as and related diseases have dramatically increased. Polluted water and soil our citizens, even as our oceans to “plastic soup” and down their circulation. Regulation of our food supply, labor market, and chemicals should protect the Earth’s sustainability and human rights. Yet consumers rarely know if their products are made through fair trade and sustainable practices.

Even as schools are shuttered in many inner cities and standardized tests are arbitrarily toughened, we to provide our students with a leading education. College tops $1 trillion, draining what could fund rent, savings or other investments.

Our transportation infrastructure is being starved of funds, with huge effort to privatize what have traditionally been government services, further harming the poor.

Jill Stein supports the creation of living wage jobs for all Americans through investments in sustainable agriculture, renewable energy and public transportation, and a $15 per hour minimum wage. She supports fair taxation on Wall Street, big corporations and the wealthy. She affirms the right to food, water, housing and utilities as economic human rights. She supports tuition-free education through college and an end to privatization of public schools. She also supports single-payer public health insurance.

As a Democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders is similarly supportive of basic human rights. He favors an increase in a living wage to $15 an hour (and he has fought for a higher minimum wage in several ). He supports limiting the credit card interest rate to 15%, and funding higher education through a financial tax, as well as single payer health insurance.

Hillary Clinton’s website speaks of making college affordable, defending the Affordable Care Act and defending social security. But she has questioned what is a “good job” (even while working with those who have undermined the struggle to keep benefits and employment protections) and spoke of profit sharing through tax credits, even as corporations aggressively outsource jobs and replace individuals with robots which many Americans hate.

While she the United Nations Declaration for Human Rights on her , Clinton avoids addressing whether she endorses rights from Articles 23 and 25: to “just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection,” to join trade unions, and “to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

7) #FemaleLivesMatter

Today, more women graduate college than , and many lucrative professions are evenly matched at the entry level. Yet females in our society have it tougher, especially those experiencing other .

An estimated one in five young women experience sexual assault on campus (with those not attending college facing more risks). Rape kits go untested for years. The workplace, too, is biased against women. The structure of the workplace is not geared to part-time work sought by two-thirds of women. Quality child care is often unaffordable or inaccessible. Women are paid less. In fact, some of the highest paid jobs (where women drop out) are devoted to weakening the US economy, hiding high fees and avoiding US taxation, shipping jobs to nations with weak protections for laborers and polluting our world. Eighty-hour workweeks are commonly cited in corporate taxation work, technology companies (like ) and investment banking.

Reproductive rights are also under attack, with five states defunding Planned Parenthood. Few of the one in three women who have an abortion (and their partners) publicly share and affirm their decision, and politically we often paint a generally decision as one that is overwrought. Cultural violence against women, which is exponentially more intense than just a generation ago—whether through TV, pornography, movies, or video games—is rarely questioned.

These issues can be framed as the function of family or class or the economy. But the reality is that gender provides a unique vulnerability to violence and stifles opportunity. The candidates have not chosen to tackle issues associated with gender comprehensively to date.

Hillary Clinton wants to make “quality, affordable child care a national priority” and to “explore ways to enhance Social Security particularly for women.” She has said “America moves when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices.” She has highlighted issues of paid leave and favors passing the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Much of Jill Stein’s platform is humanist and supports sustainability, justice, peace and dignity, which would substantially benefit women. However, little deals directly with traditionally women’s issues other than to “expand women’s rights.”

Bernie Sanders highlights what he calls “real family values,” describing how there is no guarantee paid time off for new parents. He cites involvement in a bill to support 12-weeks paid family and medical leave and to provide ten days’ vacation time and paid sick leave.

8) Trans-Pacific Partnership and Other “Trade” Agreements

There are some striking similarities between war rationales and justifications for trade agreements: Don’t look at past history, we’re told, or what’s behind the curtain.

The secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—a broad attempted expansion of corporate rights—has to do with trade. It will likely increase climate change due to the investor state dispute clause, allowing companies to hold countries responsible in new international courts for profits lost due to environmental action, including those taken to meet climate goals. It could also outlaw “Buy American” policies to boost adoption of renewable energy. Politicians’ claims that it will American jobs are dubious, as previous unfair trade agreements resulted in the massive outsourcing of good jobs. It could food safety, roll back reforms on Wall Street and increase surveillance. The next president will have significant power through fast track trade promotion authority to negotiate such treaties that can’t be amended by Congress.

Jill Stein wants to “replace corporate trade with fair trade agreements.”

Bernie Sanders rejects the TPP.

Hillary Clinton imposes criteria for approval including “national security,” although she acknowledges climate change is the “defining national security challenge of our time” on her website.

9) Partners and allies

Alliances matter, as do the records of touted allies. Partnerships can be looked at broadly. Relationships to those held up as heroes and allies say much. So too does funding taken from corporations, governments, groups or individuals, whether money is given to a campaign or a family endeavor.

Bill Clinton was famously called “the first black president” by author Toni Morrison, and the Clintons have strong ties with an older generation of black community leaders. But if Hillary Clinton wishes to run in part on Bill’s record, it’s sensible to look a little closer. Bill Clinton deserves some credit for the economic recovery. But he also promoted “anti-crime” legislation that contributed to mass incarceration, for which he has recently (Hillary dodged the question at the #BlackLivesMatter meeting). Bill Clinton also pushed the Democrats to dismantle the Glass-Steagall Act and deregulated derivatives through the Commodities Future Modernization Act, which contributed to financial crash.

Hillary Clinton has served on the board of Wal-Mart, a company famous for outsourcing manufacturing and crushing unions and better-paying local companies. She worked with questionable donors and partners through the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. Her record is certainly heavy on traditional alliances through her work as a political first lady, senator and secretary of state, but it is one that feels weak on championing of social justice. A telling moment was during her meeting with #BlackLivesMatter activists, when she harkened back to her Children’s Defense Fund work but failed to highlight major recent accomplishments.

Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein do not appear to have such conflicts of interest, and their rejection of easy money and support for humanism makes their avowed priorities believable.

Today, one needs bold leadership. The evolving examples of Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders show promise of leading movements for sustainability and justice. Conversely, a campaign of extraordinary resources like Hillary Clinton’s has been slow to respond to the urgent challenges of now. The campaign feels anchored in our institutions, including corporate America, and our past. She responds to our present crisis in a manner that feels piecemeal and far from visionary. If she is reluctant to voice support now for major priorities affecting women, minorities, those who are both and all of us now, when will she?

Joseph de Maistre, a French diplomat, stated: “In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.” To get the president we deserve, let’s have protests, let’s have debates and let’s have accountability throughout the campaign lifecycle. It’s a competition for critical components of our electorate, without which the presidential election cannot be won. Democratic presidential candidates: Tell us what you will do for us. Earn our support.

Not demanding a true democracy and humanism shortchanges America. We sell out ourselves when we don’t push for our nation to fulfill its promise for individual security, opportunity and true happiness.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:ÌęÌę/ / Ìę/

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your Ìęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post The Best Candidate for Minorities, Women and All of Us appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Any presidential candidate faces broad challenges in illuminating the harsh injustices of America and endorsing specific policies to fix them.ÌęYet this is precisely what our leaders must do to create a nation of justice and opportunity.

We live in a nation of two tiers of experience: drinking bottled vs toxic tap water; eating organic vsÌęÌęfood; speeding by on privatized roads vs sitting in traffic; accessing good vs failing schools; and escaping vs falling prey to a web of banking fraud and predatory corporate practices. Yet the ensconcedÌęeconomic makes or influencesÌęthe rules.

The wealthy take for granted—as we all should—that they are relatively protected from global shocks, that their bodily sanctity will be protected, and that traditional government services like infrastructure and education will help their families thrive.

Below are some major challenges ahead that any US presidential candidate (or large nonprofit) should be highlighting. The following issues have a disproportionate impact on poor and middle-class Americans but affect us all. These areas serve as a basis to evaluate the campaigns of leading Democratic candidates.

World Issues

Global issuesÌęhave a huge impact on the stability of our country and the opportunities of all. What is often done in the name of “national security” destroys the individual security of Americans and others worldwide, contributing to radicalization globally over a fight for resources.

A Stable Non-Predatory Financial System:ÌęSix years after our worldwide recession,ÌęJP Morgan, which has $34 billion in corporate crimesÌęand settlements over four years,Ìęand others work to revoke banking regulations andÌę the monetary systemÌęthrough the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), even while trashing whoÌę“don’t understand banking.”ÌęThe recent recession led to aÌę of the wealth gapÌębetween minorities and whites. Whites now own about 20 times more. And the next bank-fueled recession could be worse. It is critical to know where candidates stand on major solutions like the reimplementation of the Glass-Steagall Act and new banking reforms.

Limiting Climate Change: The agreement in Copenhagen six years ago was recentlyÌę at the G7 meeting—limiting the world to 2-degree Celsius temperature rise.ÌęPope Francis just released a groundbreaking encyclical on climate change. It includes a focus on the crushing price the world’s poor will pay and the pressing need for a “cultural revolution” in rich nations. The touted 2-degree target could be reached either byÌę our food choicesÌęorÌęagricultural . Other major initiatives could include building a whollyÌęrenewable US energy Ìęby 2050; ending extreme energy extraction, like the Alberta tar sands that would go through the Keystone XL Pipeline; or imposing a tax on carbon.

Trans-Pacific Partnership: The secret TPP has been exposed as grab bag of provisions to expand of corporate rights. It hasÌęlittle to do with . The investor state dispute clause allows for companies to hold countries responsible in new international courts for profits lost due to environmental laws. This includes laws implemented to support international climate change agreements—reason enough to reject the TPP. Claims it willÌę American jobsÌęare dubious as well. Finally, it couldÌę food safety, roll back reformsÌęon Wall Street, make medical drugs more expensive and outlaw “Buy American” policies that could speed adoption of renewable energy. Where do candidates stand on this terrible treaty?

A Rethinking of War and Peace:ÌęSince 1945, the United States has numerous drug lords, terrorists and fascists. In Iraq alone, Western nations supported sanctionsÌęthat 1.7 million people, half of whom were children. The 2003 invasion resulted in the death of 1 million more. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic State andÌęal-Shabab became viable Ìęas a result of our interventions, and American-supplied weapons are being used against us. Candidates need to deeply rethink our commitment to war and to envision and promote peace globally.

Rights

Individual rightsÌęspeak to the very sanctity of one’s body. The lack of safety, food, shelter and health care are the gravest threats to our collective security.

Gender safety and reproductive rights:ÌęOne in sixÌęAmerican women rape or attempted rape. A similar number experience campus sexual assault. This epidemic of gender-based violence must end. We need to examine individual, bystander and societal behavior, including a culture in which violence against women is “entertainment.”

Freedom from gun violence:ÌęWe live in a country with over 32,000 gun deaths per year from suicide and homicide. Weekly, we read of tragic gun violence and mass shootingsÌę to domestic violence. Most recently, nine people were killed in a terrorist action in South Carolina. This prevalent deadly violence, often motivated by hatred of women and minorities, should not be tolerated. Countries like Australia haveÌędramatically gun violenceÌęthrough legislation. We, too, must find the answers.

Accountability for and an end to police and jail brutality: There are no reliable statistics of police gun violence, but anÌę 5,600 or more people have been killedÌęby officers since 2000. Overmilitarized police departments, deputized individuals and private police have been involved.ÌęIn contrast, public police in England and WalesÌędid not shoot anyoneÌęfor two years. Keeping the peace can be done peacefully.

Accessible, affordable health care: Seven years ago, Michael Moore’s “Sicko” firmly landed the plight of theÌęinsuredÌęon our national radar. The Affordable Care Act has widened coverage. Yet health care-related bankruptcies, unjustifiable and excessive pricing, and insurance errors continue to undermine affordability and access. A single payer solution could provide Americans universal affordable health care that is available in all other developed countries.

A fair minimum wage and life with dignity:ÌęThe reality is the minimum wage isÌę a living wage. While it is important to advocate for a significant boost to paychecks, it is also important to push for basic standard of living for those who are unemployed or retired. Equally, if not more important, would be cracking down on predatory practices, in part throughÌęwell-funded legal Ìęfor the poor. These new realities of stripped down benefits are documented in Jacob Hacker’sÌęThe Great Risk ShiftÌęand Caroline Fredrickson’sÌęUnder the Bus.

Good public health and lifespan: Has there been a larger non-war time decline in public health? Half of all Americans areÌęon or more medications.ÌęÌęand related diseases have skyrocketed in America. Men and women living just 350 miles apart haveÌęlife-spans of 18 and 12 years .

Sustainable environment:ÌęPolluted and soilÌępoisons our citizens, even as our oceans turn toÌę“”ÌęandÌęslow down their .ÌęWhat national and international commitments will we make to keep our environment sustainable for life?

Responsibility

Governmental responsibilitiesÌęshould promote democracy and our economic prosperity for all.

Voting rights for all:ÌęMass disenfranchisement has occurred through restrictive voting registration and voter ID laws, limited voting windows and the long-term removal of US citizens from the rolls.ÌęEight percent of voting-age black AmericansÌę vote, a situation that keeps Florida a swing state. More than half of Michigan’s black residents had theirÌęlocal voting rights awayÌęin 2013 and 2014. We must restore constitutional rights fundamental to our democracy.

Fair sourcing of revenue: The dramatic and growingÌę in America is shockingÌęand unacceptable to most Americans. TheÌętop 1% 121%Ìęof all income gains in the years after the recession, withÌęthe top 1% now 40% of all American wealth.ÌęThe prevailing anti-tax sentiment means basic programs like police response, health care and college are underfunded. Do candidates support a financial transaction tax, higher estate taxes, closing the carried interest loophole and higher corporate taxes?

Good public education and affordable college: Even as schools are shuttered in many inner cities and standardized tests are arbitrarily toughened, weÌę to provide our studentsÌęwith a leading education.ÌęIt gets no easier in college, as debtÌę $1 trillion, draining what could fund rent, savings or other investments. A recent article points to skyrocketing administrative Ìęat the higher level, not faculty salaries, as a major factor in high tuition. Nations like Germany and Finland provide college for free and useÌęeffective teacher and education models. The same could be done in the United States.

Well-funded public infrastructure and utilities: Various rationales, including a lack of tax revenue, have resulted in a huge effort to privatize what have traditionally been government services. YetÌęskyrocketing for waterÌęhave led to shutoffs condemned by the United Nations. And newly expensive and variable priced privatized roads shorten commutes for the rich, while leaving poor minorities living in the exurbs with clogged roads. The burden of poor services leads to evictions and deepening poverty while violating human rights, despite our national capacity to do better by all.

Consumer standards and regulations:ÌęRegulation of our food supply, labor market and chemicals should protect the world’s sustainability and basic human rights. Consumers should know if products are made in the US, through fair trade, by organic means, using ethical processes, and withÌęgenetically modified . Widespread adoption of such standards could promote a race to the top for a better world.

Much work lies ahead for presidential candidates to define our values and identify credible policies in these areas, even as they weigh in on current issues.

Presidential candidate is smart, with a notable background at the Children’s Defense Fund, Legal Services Corporation and in health care reform. After the growing popularity by Bernie Sanders and the populism of Elizabeth Warren, Clinton has recently voicedÌęstandard Democratic ,Ìęwhile avoiding identifying actors who create and promote these injustices.

Is the late timing and lack of narrative true leadership? And how do positions necessary for justice and opportunity square with a record as a “corporate” ally and a “hawk”?

The Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s Global Initiative worked withÌę under investigation,Ìęand foreign governments that donatedÌę more arms under her State DepartmentÌęleadership. Credible endorsement of above platform and an explanation of the foundation’s funding would be welcome. To date, the weak narratives represent major barriers in believing her campaign truly focuses on human rights, innovative policies and structural changes.

“Democratic socialist” has placed those values at the center of his presidential campaign and identified corporations and policies that threaten them. Correspondingly he hasÌęsurged in early primary polls. He has supported a single payer health care system, breaking up the big banks, using a financial transaction tax to pay for state colleges and taxing carbon.ÌęHe weighed in on current issues, voicing his opposition to the TPP and Keystone XL Pipeline, and called the Charleston massacre just hours later “an act of terror.” Now there’s real leadership.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ìę/

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌęÌęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post The Democratic Platform: Bernie and Hillary appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

“Socialism” has long been a bogeyman in . The very term is anathema; practically alone it derailed ’s health care proposals of the 1990s.

But during that time, in a socialist nation, economist Thomas Piketty was working methodically to collect hundreds of years of economic data. The result, his monumental work Capital in the Twenty-First Century, was a surprise best-seller in the United States after being hailed in Europe as the most profound study of economics since Karl Marx invented the field.

Piketty’s theories describe basic economic forces that are, in a sense, “natural laws” of economics. And the only candidate in the 2016 US President Election addressing himself to Piketty’s findings is the deeply resonant Bernie Sanders.

The general thrust of Piketty’s theory is straightforward. Wealth naturally aggregates toward itself. It’s the economics version of “like attracts like.” In the context of democratic economies, which come with banks as a means to pool resources and grow, this means the rich will get richer. Piketty has given this truism the weight of a law by proving, in an exhaustive study, that the interest rates banks pay to those who have amassed fortunes—because they allow the holding bank to exercise lending power and influence—will always outpace the growth of the overall economy.

In describing these forces the way he has, Piketty has isolated a single, attainable charge that should be the bellwether for democratic capitalist economies: Their stability can be directly attributed to their effectiveness at curbing these forces. Moreover, his foundational work explains why Aristotle said, in alluding to unnamed governmental experiments that preceded classical Greece, “democracies always end in oligarchies.” It was the philosopher’s description of the same law. And it is why, in every religious tradition of the Western world, there is a history of moral imprecations against usury.

But the rhetoric of American politics obfuscates this all-important task. The Republican candidates would rather talk about moral issues, even though their field is morally bankrupt. The Democratic candidates want to emphasize that “it’s the economy, stupid,” but not go so far as to alienate their big donors.

The Right Candidate?

Enter Bernie Sanders, the only candidate speaking to this issue. Right now, the mainstream media is referring to his success as “populism.” But that label has never applied to a winning candidate (see William Jennings Bryan). The political class focus on “the resonance of his message,” as if the substance of what he is saying were secondary. But that is the analysis of an elite who fail to recognize that their job is one of stewardship.

Americans “might be dumb, but they ain’t stupid.” Sanders’ campaign has been catching fire because he is speaking plainly and directly. But mostly, his success is owed to what he is saying, not how he saying it. And whether it is by intuition or common sense—Aristotle also said the simplest explanation is usually the best—Americans are well-aware of two things: First, that the rug has been pulled over their eyes, and second, that there is great risk in continuing down the same path.

And this is why Sanders as a candidate matters to the world right now. The consequences the US not addressing itself directly to Piketty’s law are incredibly bleak. Everyone now knows how interconnected the world is, especially in the economic sense. No one can deny Apple is able to amass its wealth on the backs of ’s workforce. And, in keeping with Piketty’s law, no one without interested backers can deny the dramatic risk the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) bill poses to both the “even playing field” of international trade (in its severely lop-sided intellectual property provisions), and the sovereignty of nations itself (in its grant of Fast-Track authority to corporate-appointed arbitrators).

Again, people may not understand the finer points of these debates, but they understand that if the allocation of resources continue to be decided by men who have no check on their authority—and they have the power to disallow advancements in green technology and carbon emissions, for example—then governments are basically shell corporations. People know that even if it doesn’t look like Mad Max, it feels like it somehow.

The American people know they are living an experiment. They know, whether by Piketty’s law or just a feeling in their gut, that there is a force at work threatening the very fiber of the experiment. And the world-over knows that Americans have a responsibility, as the only remaining superpower, to curb the abuses of its warlords and put its power to use for good. Bernie Sanders seems to be the only candidate who is willing to talk about the world that everyone else sees.

Where the rest of the candidates have all kinds of motives for entering the race—from naked ambition (Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal) to the desire to serve their constituencies (Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley)—the only candidate who has distinguished himself by addressing these fundamental economic issues is Bernie Sanders.

The Sanders campaign is not inevitable—far from it. He is simply the only candidate speaking to these issues. Eventually, the rest will catch on and attempt to ride lay claim to Sanders’ “populism.” There is probably someone out there who can do it better, and Hillary Clinton will certainly make the most careful and calculated attempt to take up that position.

But no matter who tries, until they show a willingness to confront the very power they seek to hold, they are, by Piketty’s law, necessarily working against the interests of all of us and cannot “right the ship” in the sense the American people—and the world—want to see it righted.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ìę/Ìę

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your Ìęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post World Economy Needs a Bernie Sanders Presidency appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.