New Hampshire has refocused the race for president a bit, and now we’re bracing for the contests to come. As I write, another Democratic debate is scheduled for this evening. My hope is that Senator Sanders will have worked out a way of speaking about foreign policy that will make him less of a target on that score. I’m not suggesting that he adopt more hawkish positions – quite the opposite. He just needs to articulate some of the quite nuanced views that he has held for many years. If ever we needed an alternative take on foreign policy, that time is now.
{Later that evening … }
Okay, I did hear some encouraging words from Senator Sanders on war and peace. Not enough, in my opinion, but certainly better than last time. I am glad that he gave some historical perspective to a position that is just as relevant today as it was in the 1950s: the conviction that the United States should not be acting like an empire, overthrowing disobedient regimes whenever we feel like it, bombing wherever we please, always opting early for the sword. Clinton did what she always does – offer a set of proposals that extend the bad policy we are currently implementing. Could Sanders have disagreed more with the underlying premises of her positions? Oh, yes … but you have to pick your fights in a television debate.
It was heartening to hear Sanders call Clinton out on her bragging about being endorsed, in a sense, by Henry Kissinger. I’m very glad he addressed that, because it counteracts Clinton’s attempt at arguing that political fights of previous decades have no bearing on the current policy debate. Kissinger is still a player and continues to undergo a kind of rehabilitation promoted by both Republicans and – shamefully – Democrats. Sanders was right to denounce him as in essence a war criminal, with the blood of many thousands on his hands. Maybe I was in the minority in being gobsmacked by Clinton’s invocation of Kissinger at the last debate – she tried to minimize it a bit during the PBS debate somewhat, but that fell kind of flat.
It’s incumbent upon us, the other America, to push Sanders and, yes, Clinton to the left on these and other issues. We cannot afford to continue these bankrupt policies overseas; if we just accept the comforting lies, we can look forward to another decade or more of pointless war.
luv u,
jp
I think one advantage Bernie may have is that he is making a case for something different than the status quo. His presidency would not be a third Obama term, whereas from the sound of Hillary (and what we know of how the Clintons govern), we would have continuity under her guiding hand.
Who’s the moderate in that race? Christie? Don’t say Christie. He’s vehemently anti choice, wants to provoke war with Russia, and has all the racial sensitivity of Nixon during his drunk period (to say nothing of being a shill for the Peterson Institute, which advocates for privatizing Social Security). Forget Jeb Bush. He’s easily as bad as his brother on the issues, only with less raw political talent. Rubio? He’s the bold “young” candidate who seems to have his head stuck in decades-old Cold War strategy like a bug in amber. Frankly, any one of these candidates would be an unmitigated disaster as president.
Okay, that was a sobering sign, to be sure. Even more infuriating than the sideshow atmospherics was the framing of the questions, delivered for the most part by Anderson Cooper. While the Democratic field is decidedly to the left, at least from a rhetorical perspective, of where they were even eight years ago, the corporate media questioners proceeded through the lens of Reagan’s America. The signal example of this for me was Cooper’s comment to Bernie Sanders about his support for the Sandinista government in Nicargua in the 1980s, as if that was a particularly controversial position in retrospect. (This can be equated with opposition to the Contra terror war against that government being pursued by the Reagan administration at the time – a war so broadly opposed by the American people that Congress had explicitly banned funding for the Contra forces.)
The danger in this is that we have developed a political economy around this practice of perpetual elections. One leg of this stool is the pay-to-play culture of political fundraising. Office holders are spending increasing amounts of their time with potential donors, dialing for dollars and addressing $10,000 a plate dinner crowds. Another leg is the media feeding frenzy that attends every twist and turn of the competition. Plenty of news to be served up, with lots of red meat. And then there’s the ad revenue, in the billions of dollars, ultimately.
First, Trump. As someone who was once a contract employee of this individual (yes, he can say that I too took money from him at some point), I know this guy is more than just a cartoon show for our amusement. What he says and does can have real consequences for people who don’t ride in limos and private jets. So when he talks about forcing 11 million people to leave the country, understand that he is articulating a point of view that is held by a very vocal, substantial minority of Americans. There’s nothing ‘silent’ about this ‘majority’. They want ethnic cleansing.
This crowded clown car is such a stunning illustration of the extent to which the national Republican Party has lost control of their own electoral process. Either that or they have completely lost their minds. There was a day when the party could take someone aside and say, “No, no. Not this time. Next time, maybe,” and the ambitious pol would refrain from competing. Now the process is being driven from the outside; it’s being pushed by talk radio, conservative bloggers, and Fox News, as well as foundation-funded think tanks and 401(c)3’s and 4’s. If I were a Republican, I would be disgusted by this lack of discipline. There is no way to foster a meaningful televised debate between 10 egotistical people, let alone 17.
Okay, so first of all, “we” knew what we know now then. Brother Bush is just clinging to the mythology spun by his and his brother’s advisers. You remember the story – we had all this seemingly reliable intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, supplied by the CIA, that turned out to be unreliable. All their fault. Of course, at the time it was painfully obvious that the WMD story was bogus, as was the story about any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Yellowcake uranium story? Debunked at the time. Aluminum tubes? Again, thoroughly refuted at the time. Al Qaeda in Iraqi Kurdistan in 2002? Crap, reported at the time. I could go on.
What about policy? It doesn’t look good, frankly, and it’s kind of depressing. Hillary Clinton is mouthing platitudes about inequality and being a “champion” for ordinary people, but that seems pretty clearly an effort to close off demand in her own party for a progressive alternative, like Elizabeth Warren. If she makes the right noises for a few months, it will be too late to mount any meaningful opposition. She is, of course, a mainstream interventionist on foreign policy, a supporter of the neoliberal order on economic policy, and generally a middle-of-the-road Democrat (or what was formerly known as a moderate Republican). Looking for a white knight – say, a Jim Webb? Don’t even. I just heard him obsessing over Iran this evening, like pretty much all of his fellow mainstream Dems. Warren and Sanders would have to abandon their political distinctiveness – i.e. their hostility towards bankers and lobbyists – to seriously compete in this money-heavy game, thereby abandoning any reason for supporting them.
Perhaps it’s simply that our Congressional elections are really 435 tiny local races rather than one big, national one; that each district decides on the basis of who’s running and who’s most likely to show up at the polls. My home district, New York’s 22nd (the fighting 22nd!) is a pretty good example. Our representative, Republican Richard Hanna, ran unopposed last year. The Democratic Party won the seat for the first time in a generation in 2006, lost it in 2010 and again in 2012, and apparently decided it wasn’t worth spending any more money on. Hanna is far from the most reactionary member of his caucus, but he is a conservative Republican in the traditional sense, holding a 95% rating with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an “A” rating from the NRA, so it would have been nice to have someone else to vote for. So much for that.