Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

Who is to blame for President Trump?


The election of Donald Trump represents a howl of outrage from millions of people who have felt abandoned by the political system. There was no sense or strategy to it, it was just a gigantic "fuck you" to a political establishment who have spent the last four decades pandering to the interests of the super-rich and allowing the erosion of the American middle class and the annihilation of American industry.

The racists, misogynists, fascists and xenophobes obviously came out in force to back the most bigoted presidential candidate in modern times, but there's more to it than that. Of course the bigots in America won the greatest victory of their lives, but they clearly didn't achieve it on their own, there's simply not enough of them.

The smug mainstream media consensus is already being formed that the "uneducated white working class" are to blame for this result, but this particular blame-game ignores a number of other much more significant culprits.

The most obvious culprits to start with are the Republican party elite who allowed their own party to be hijacked by a bigoted and mentally unstable demagogue. A few notable exceptions refused to endorse Trump but the majority of Republican politicians decided that it was in their own self-interest to clamber onto the Trump bandwagon and cheerlead for him, despite knowing full well that he's the most dangerously unhinged candidate ever to run for President.

The problem with blaming the Republicans is that their recent history is stuffed full of terrifyingly unsuitable Presidential candidates. Richard Nixon is rightly remembered as the most dishonest President in history (until now at least). Ronald Reagan was a B movie actor who was clearly suffering dementia by his second term in office. Then there was George "Dubya" Bush who somehow managed to make Reagan look like a towering intellect in comparison. Then in 2012 there was Mitt Romney. Just imagine the insanity of thinking it's a good idea to put forward a ruthless vampire capitalist like Romney when the nation was still suffering the fallout of the global financial sector meltdown!

The problem with blaming the Republicans for selecting bizarre and terrifying presidential candidates is that it's like blaming the sun for setting at night or attempting to stop the tide from coming in by shouting at it. It's just what they do.

If we're looking for a particular voter demographic to blame for Trump, then there's a much more obvious one than the white working class scapegoats. The white evangelical Christians came out in force to back the least Christian presidential candidate the US has ever seen, and they're 
getting an astonishing free pass from the majority of the media elite for their hypocrisy. The exit polls suggest that Trump won the evangelical Christian vote by 81% - 16%. In the key swing state of Florida the margin was an even more emphatic 85% - 13%.

Trump is a divisive, arrogant, intolerant, sexist, abusive, casino-building, multiple divorcee and sexual predator, but millions of so-called Christians flocked to the polls to give him the strongest evangelical endorsement of any presidential candidate in decades.

It's actually pretty easy to understand working class Americans sending a massive "fuck you" to the political establishment after the four decades of neglect they've suffered, but it's almost impossible to comprehend the sheer hypocrisy of a bunch of hard-core Christians flocking to the polls to vote for a deeply unchristian bigot like Donald Trump, especially when a significant number of evangelical ministers came out and warned them not to.

But then again blaming white evangelicals for their abject hypocrisy is as futile as blaming the Republican Party for putting forward yet another crackpot presidential candidate. White evangelicals flocking to the polls to vote Republican is as reliable as the Republicans picking terrifying presidential candidates for them to vote for.

In my view the most blameworthy people of all are the Democratic Party elitists who worked tirelessly to undermine Bernie Sanders and rig the Democratic primaries against him. These people deliberately crushed the Sanders revolution simply because they believed that it was Hillary Clinton's turn to be President.

The polls clearly showed that Sanders had a much better chance of defeating Trump, but the Democratic Party elite and pretty much all of their anti-democratic super delegates sided with Clinton, but it was much worse than that. The evidence is absolutely clear that elite Democrats deliberately rigged the contest to ensure that Bernie Sanders couldn't win the Democratic nomination.

The folly of derailing Bernie Sanders' unprecedented grass-roots democracy campaign in favour of appointing the most pro-establishment Wall Street friendly candidate imaginable is all too obvious now that Trump has won, but it was always a deeply risky gamble given the revolutionary mood that has been growing in global politics since the global financial sector insolvency crisis.

People all over the world have been crying out for alternatives to the complacent political elites who allowed the global financial sector meltdown to happen in the first place, then even more unforgivably loaded the cost of the crisis onto the backs of ordinary people whilst allowing the super-rich minority who actually caused the crisis to carry on making themselves even richer than ever.

Incredibly the Democratic Party elitists decided to completely ignore this revolutionary mood and install their favoured Wall Street backed puppet candidate rather support the guy who was running an inspirational grass-roots anti-establishment campaign that was tapping into the public anger at a political system that was no longer seen to serve the interests of ordinary people.

We'll never know whether Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump because the Democratic Party elitists colluded with Clinton to prevent the possibility. However we can still be reasonably confident that Sanders' anti-establishment grass-roots democracy campaign would have taken an awful lot more wind out of Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric than Hillary Clinton's insipid, uninspiring "more of the same", "be thankful for the crumbs you've got" campaign.

There's no point in blaming the bigots and racists (they were always going to vote for Trump). There's little point in blaming the Republicans for once again putting forward a lunatic Presidential candidates (that's just what they do). There's no point in blaming the white working class for saying a big "fuck you" to a political system that has callously neglected them for the last four decades. The most blameworthy people are clearly the out of touch Democratic Party elitists who deliberately colluded with Hillary Clinton to destroy their own anti-establishment candidate (who had much better and more believable anti-establishment credentials than the bigoted billionaire Trump).

It's bad enough that they destroyed their own anti-establishment candidate, but the decision to crush Sanders is even worse considering they did it in order to put forward a living embodiment of the despised political elite.

Everyone who supported the Sanders campaign will remember the disgustingly displays of smug sneering contempt from Clinton supporters as it became clear she was going to win the nomination. These arrogant and patronising displays of outright contempt towards Sanders' genuine grass-roots political revolution and everyone who supported it was what lost the Democrats an election they should have won as a landslide.

The Democratic Party elitists rigged their leadership contest in favour of their pro-establishment candidate and then they sneered at all those who wanted to change the system to make it fairer and more responsive to the needs of the people. By doing this they took away the opportunity for America to restructure itself in a coherent and democratic manner and left the masses with the appalling choice of their chosen "more of the same" candidate, or sending a massive and utterly reckless "fuck you" to the political establishment.

By creating such an appalling choice for the electorate the out-of-touch Democratic Party elitists ended up handing the keys to the White House to a terrifyingly unstable right-wing demagogue.

In hindsight can any of them honestly say that President Trump is a better outcome than the idea of President Sanders that terrified them so much that they rigged their own internal party democracy in order to prevent it?


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Friday, 15 April 2016

Criticism of Israeli policy ≠ anti-Semitism


In April 2016 I was accused of having anti-Semitic views after posting a clip of the Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders talking about Israel.

The sheer irony of getting accused of anti-Semitism by an Israel apologist for daring to share a clip of a Jewish man (Bernie Sanders) criticising Israel's deadly bombardment of Gaza in 2014 is quite staggering. 


If I really was an anti-Semite would I really be so impressed with Bernie Sanders' mediating language that I'd share it on my Facebook page? Would a bigoted Jew-hater really approve of Bernie Sanders so much that they'd like to see him become the first ever Jewish President of the United States (as I would)?

Here's what Bernie Sanders said in the clip I shared:

"If we are ever going to bring peace we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity ... I believe it [Israel's bombardment of Gaza in 2014] was [disproportionate] ... We had in the Gaza area some ten thousand civilians who were wounded, and some 1,500 who were killed."
If I'm apparently an "anti-Semite" simply for expressing agreement with Bernie Sanders' views, does that mean Bernie Sanders is an anti-Semite by extension? Will partisan Israel apologists call him a "self-hating Jew" because he dares to express an opinion that not everything the Israeli state has ever done is perfect?

In my view the only way the Israel-Palestine conflict will ever be resolved is if the US government stops supporting the worst excesses of the Israelis, and accepts the proposition that Palestinians are people too. Bernie Sanders apparently shares this view, and I applaud him for it. As a Jewish man his sympathies are obviously going to be drawn towards the people of the Jewish state, so it obviously takes a great deal of humanity for him to be able to see things from both sides of the conflict, and to want to mediate in an even-handed manner.

If that kind of approach makes Bernie Sanders a "self-hating Jew"  
in the eyes of some, and me an "anti-Semite" for agreeing with him, then so be it. I'm not going to shut up and say silent simply because some highly partisan Israel apologists are going to smear me for daring to express an opinion they don't like. 

It doesn't seem to matter how often it is pointed out to "anti-Semitism" wielding Israel apologists that


Criticism of Israeli policy ≠ anti-Semitism

they keep on using this outrageous "anti-Semite" smear to try to shut down legitimate criticism of atrocities committed by the Israeli state.

It doesn't matter how legitimate or even handed the criticism of Israeli policy, time and again these people - who know no better debating tactics than slinging ugly smears in order to try to silence dissent - turn up to spew their ugly partisan bile.

The really awful thing is that this disgusting bad faith debating tactic is very effective. Fear of being hit with this kind of toxic smear is enough to scare off a lot of people from expressing their opinions on the Israel-Palestine situation, because nobody ever likes to be called a disgusting bigot on a public forum (even if the accusation is completely unfounded).

This tactic of using "anti-Semite" smears to scare moderate people away from contributing to the Israel-Palestine debate is very effective in polarising the debate so that in many cases the vast majority of people left contributing are people expressing extremely partisan views in favour of one side or another, which is absolutely no recipe for a mediated settlement to be achieved.

I'm not sure if keeping the debate as polarised as possible in order to diminish the chances of a fair negotiated settlement is the objective of people who use these "anti-Semite" smears. I guess probably not, most of them probably just see it as a convenient way of shutting down legitimate criticism that they don't want to hear. However, whatever the intention of this kind of appalling smear tactic, it's clear that by hounding anyone who expresses anything other than undiluted praise for Israel, extreme polarisation of the debate is a logical consequence.




 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR


Wednesday, 6 April 2016

Bernie Sanders was right about Panama


The leak of the Panama Papers has vindicated Bernie Sanders stance against tax-dodging. In 2011 Sanders strongly criticised the Panama Free Trade agreement while his rival for the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination Hillary Clinton voted in favour of the Panama free trade agreement.

Here's what he said to Congress on October 12th 2011.

"Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama free trade agreement will make this bad situation much worse. Each and every year, the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and in other countries." [source]
As Secretary of State in the Obama administration Hillary Clinton not only voted for the Panama free trade agreement, she also publicly advocated it, and congratulated President Obama when the deal was passed saying "these initiatives are the leading edge of a job-creating trade agenda that will open markets, level the playing field for our businesses and workers, and champion America’s working families in an age of tough global competition".

The confidence with which Clinton celebrated this deal with one of the most notorious tax havens in the world is staggering. As Bernie Sanders pointed out during his speech opposing the deal, the Panamanian economy is only 0.2% of the size of the US economy, so anyone talking up a free trade agreement between the two countries in terms of being some kind of jobs bonanza is clearly being disingenuous. As for the bits about "levelling the playing field" and "championing working families" they're utterly absurd black=white assertions. How on earth is a trade agreement with a notorious tax haven where wealthy US citizens and corporations stash their ill-gotten gains good for ordinary working families?

After the initial furore over the high profile politicians implicated in the Panama Papers had died down, the media team who are carefully stage-managing the release of information quietly announced some of the first American names in the Mosack Fonseca client list which included:

  • Robert Miracle (convicted fraudster)
  • Benjamin Wey (indicted on securities fraud charges in 2015)
  • Igor Olenicoff (found guilty of stashing $200m in offshore accounts in 2007)
  • Anthony J. Gumbiner (guilty of SEC fraud in the 1980s)
  • John Michael 'Red' Crim (found guilty of a $10m tax fraud in 2008)
  • Jonathan Kaplan (found guilty in 2007 of accepting a $400,000 commercial bribe) 
It's astonishing that back in 2011 Hillary Clinton used such misleading language to celebrate a free trade deal with an economy that provides a bolt hole for criminals like those listed above to stash the ill-gotten gains they've ripped off from American working families (either directly through fraud, or indirectly by dodging their taxes meaning either services have to be cut, or other American citizens have to make up the shortfall).

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of Republicans (in Congress and in the Senate) supported Barack Obama's Panama free trade agreement, while the bulk of the limited opposition in both houses came from Democrats.


Here is what Bernie Sanders had to say after the Panama Papers came out:

"I was opposed to the Panama Free Trade Agreement from day one. I predicted that the passage of this disastrous trade deal would make it easier, not harder, for the wealthy and large corporations to evade taxes by sheltering billions of dollars offshore. I wish I had been proven wrong about this, but it has now come to light that the extent of Panama’s tax avoidance scams is even worse than I had feared.  
My opponent [Hillary Clinton], on the other hand, opposed this trade agreement when she was running against Barack Obama for president in 2008. But when it really mattered she quickly reversed course and helped push the Panama Free Trade Agreement through Congress as Secretary of State. The results have been a disaster.
The American people are sick and tired of establishment politicians who say one thing during a campaign and do the exact opposite the day after the election. “It is time for real change. As president, I will use my authority to terminate the Panama Free Trade Agreement within six months. My administration will conduct an immediate investigation into U.S. banks, corporations and wealthy individuals who have been stashing their cash in Panama to avoid taxes. If any of them have violated U.S. law, my administration will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law."
In stark contrast to the empty tough-talking rhetoric about tax-dodging from UK Prime Minister David Cameron, it's possible to actually believe Bernie Sanders is serious about confronting the problem because he's got an actual track record of opposing tax-dodging, and opposing free trade deals with notorious tax haven economies.



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.






MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
Bigotry and racism in the Republican Party

The best of #FoxNewsFacts
           
What the Panama Papers do and don't tell us
                     
Who are the real extremists?
                                      
How NSA over-reach might be worse than terrorism
                  



Sunday, 4 November 2012

A letter to American voters

Dear American voter,

I'm English and I'm going to share my opinion on American politics. I know how much you are going to appreciate it; after all us Brits are the true experts in sham "democracy". Our "democracy" is even more crude and unrepresentative than yours.

Our "democracy" is so unrepresentative and anti-democratic, in England it is the unwritten law that "democracy" must be written in inverted commas. Our upper house is like your Senate but totally unelected. Can you believe that? How would you feel about an unelected senate?

In the past. Lords of the manor simply inherited their seats in the upper house by virtue of being the sons of their wealthy landowner fathers, hence the name; House of Lords. Nowadays nearly everyone that sits in that undemocratic place is a direct appointee of the executive. 11 UK Prime Ministers between them have created over 1,000 peerages (who remain in the House of Lords for the rest of their lives, whilst it takes around 35-40 million voting citizens to elect just 650 members of the House of Commons on four to five year terms.

Even worse than the farcically anti-democratic house of Lords, is the fact that the UK has an unelected head of state called the Queen. Not only is she the head of the government, she is also the head of the Church of England. In comparison, at least the US has a theoretical "separation of church and state".

Worst of all, Britain doesn't even have a written constitution like the United States, our politicians can just make it up as they go along.

If you ever find yourself worrying that American democracy is nothing bust a sham based on an illusion of choice, just thank God you're not British.

Anyway, back to the point, which is to express my views on American politics. I can just imagine how these opinions from an Englishman would go down so darned well with an American audience.

The two main candidates in your election are obvious corporate shills. Anyone that doesn't accept this as a fact, doesn't know the first thing about American so-called democracy. We are talking about people so daft that they don't even understand the vastness of corporate political donations, the immense manpower of corporate lobbying or the actual composition of the two main parties. People like this should not be allowed to vote. However, this kind of simple-minded reactionary cretin seems to make up a hefty proportion of the US electorate, so disenfranchising them would be out of the question. The only solution would seem to be to give them a "distraction party" to vote for. A party led by clown like morons that quite obviously lack the mental faculties to run the most powerful nation on Earth, something like the British Official Monster Raving Loony Party. The only danger of course, is that the size of the credulous idiot demographic is severely underestimated and the American public end up electing some kind of deranged chimp in a suit!

Mitt Romney - The liar


Mitt Romney is is exactly the same kind of vacuous, dishonest, pathologically self-serving, intellectual-lightweight as Britain's David Cameron. Just look at the socio-economic chaos Cameron and his bunch of toffs are creating in the UK as a foretaste of what a Romney Presidency would be like.

Romney is such a dishonest, flip-flopping, self-serving, intellectual lightweight he makes "Tricky Dicky" Richard Nixon look like a man of towering integrity; he makes Ronald Reagan look like a man of towering intellect; and he makes George Bush II look like a man of extreme competence.

Romney will say absolutely anything if he thinks it serves his own self-interest. If he's talking to a crowd of extremely wealthy Republicans, he'll promise to cut taxes for the wealthy and slash public services, if he's talking to an audience of ordinary Americans, he'll promise not to cut taxes for the wealthy and to protect jobs and services. He is quite clearly a man of remarkable dishonesty and duplicity. One hopes that the American public are able to see his glaring lack of integrity. I mean he's "flip-flopped" so many times it is impossible to actually imagine what he would actually get up to if handed supreme power, except of course it would be some kind of evil money making scam, such as the activities he got up to at Bain Capital.

The fact that a transparent liar like Mitt Romney has managed to get himself this close to supreme power is a rude indictment of the state of American democracy.

Barack Obama - The dreambreaker

Obama swept to power during one of the great (if not the greatest) American financial crises, he won the Presidency on a mandate of "change"
and "Obama-mania". But he immediately appointed dozens of the very people who caused the economic meltdown, or did absolutely nothing to prevent it (Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Gary Gensler, Mary Shapiro and many others)  into all the top economic and many of the top political positions within his administration. Obama's coziness with the banks has been one of the hugely disappointing things about his Presidency. It doesn't matter how conservative or liberal you are, corruption is surely something that the President should attempt to stamp out, instead of giving a free-pass to everyone involved in the economic crisis (except Bernie Madoff).

Another major disappointment has been Obama's continuation of costly interventionist US military policy. American wars have cost the US economy $ trillions it can't afford and cemented the impression that America is a land of cruel oppressive imperialists. Instead of being the nation that reluctantly but heroically rescued Europe in Two World Wars, America has transformed itself into the global warmonger in chief. The Obama administration has done absolutely nothing to counter the common impression that the US is the global bully-in-chief.

It does seem that Obama is miles ahead of Romney on social policy; I mean he has said that gays should have the right to marry and he doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would force women to carry their rape babies. Despite this slightly more socially progressive stance, Obama still signed the grotesquely anti-constitutional NDAA, which revokes even more constitutional rights than Bush destroyed with the so-called Patriot Act.

Obama is clearly just playing the social progressive card to hoover up the votes of people that are terrified that Romney is so dishonest that they can only guess at how malicious his social policies might actually be, whatever is most profitable to him and his associates one would imagine.

Gary Johnson - The race to the bottom guy

Gary Johnson is the latest fundamentalist libertarian trying to win the Presidency. His social and foreign policies are actually way to the left of Obama and his economic policies are way to the right of Mitt Romney.

On social policy Johnson is a classic liberal, he would repeal the Patriot Act and the NDAA, he would end the war on drugs, fully legalise marijuana and he believes that gay marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed right, not something that should be left up to the individual states to decide for themselves.

On foreign policy Johnson is a non-interventionist. He would remove US troops from Afghanistan, oppose any attempts to launch yet another multi-trillion war to "liberate" Iran's oilfields and he would attempt to reduce the enormous burden on the US taxpayer of maintaining countless military bases all over the world.

On economic policy he is a fundamentalist anti-tax libertarian, intent on turning the US into a vast tax-haven by completely abolishing corporation tax and income tax. These policies would trigger a destructive race-to-the-bottom in "main street" America and the rest of the world alike. Johnson's economic policies would trigger the corporate endgame, with all countries suddenly slashing corporation taxes, labour rights and business regulations in order to incentivize corporate interests to remain in their countries. Corporate interests would increase their already disproportionate share of the wealth, workers would get poorer and the environment would be annihilated. Such a race to the bottom would be hugely detrimental to everyone but the corporate elite and their shills. A strategy that would prolong the American empire at the cost a creating vast social and economic instability, in "main street" America and across the World.

Absurdly the US mainstream press describe Johnson's policy of marijuana legalisation, not his loopy economic policies as his "most controversial". How is it possible for anyone to accept the mainstream media narrative that Johnson's plan to stop locking up tens of thousands of people for nothing more than inhaling the fumes of a virtually harmless herb is more controversial than his plan to completely abolish corporation tax and turn the entire US economy into the largest tax-haven in the World?

Jill Stein - The lost cause

Jill Stein is the Green party candidate. There is not much point in talking about her; the Green Party's impressive list of policies; the fact that they are endorsed by America's greatest living intellectual; or the fact that unlike their political rivals, they refuse to take corporate donations.

The American corporate media has smashed the green movement with more success than green-demonisation campaigns in any other country, which is sad, because the origins of the green political movement can be traced back to the protest movements of the 1970s.


The green movement is making headway in many of the World's richest and most powerful nations, Germany and Japan are leading the way, China have started talking up their green credentials and even oil rich Saudi Arabia have set a policy of greenification before their oil runs out.

The United States is a country where more people believe that the Earth was hand crafted by God on a busy week just a few thousand years ago than believe in the possibility that environmental pollution could be causing global warming. What makes this so absurd is that American business and foreign policy is absolutely dominated by oil. If Christian God really did make the world, and all the oil reserves just a few thousand years ago, one wonders why on Earth he decided to put such huge oil reserves in non-Christian countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran.

Rosanne Barr - The loudmouth

To non-Americans, Rosanne Barr is a typical American citizen, she is brash and opinionated, she is a self-made woman with a cruel sense of humour, but beneath it all she has a good honest heart. Rosanne burst into the American consciousness by deliberately mutilating the last two lines of the national anthem at a baseball game back in 1990. She then cemented her place as an American celebrity with her long-running sitcom about American working-class life "Rosanne".

She tried to get the nomination for the Green party, but when she failed she quickly secured the nomination of the Peace and Freedom party instead.

Her name won't even appear on the ballot paper in many states, but she is certainly worth a mention because she is the kind of working-class liberal feminist candidate that would absolutely infuriate the reactionary Republican right. But as a self-made individual she should rightly be considered an American working-class hero.

The other no-hopers

Just like the vast majority of American voters, I don't know enough about the other no-hopers like Rocky Anderson and Virgil Goode to hold any valid opinion about them, except the certainty that they have as much chance of making it to the White House as Mozambique has of overcoming the United States to become the most powerful economy on Earth in the next couple of days.

Conclusion

As an Englishman it is clearly not my place to tell you how to vote. However, I believe I have every right to express my opinion on who I would vote for if I was an American citizen.

Firstly, whatever the circumstances, I'd vote against Mitt Romney. Letting a duplicitous, manipulative, self-interested and amoral cretin like that into the White House would be a disaster for the vast majority of Americans, a disaster for the American economy and a disaster for the World. If I was a resident of one of the swing states that actually gets to determine the US Presidency I'd have to hold my nose and vote for Barack Obama. 

If I lived in one of the majority of states that are traditionally blue or red, where it doesn't really matter who you vote for; I'd cast my vote for one of the other candidates as a protest vote, probably Rosanne, simply because voting for Rosanne Barr as President would have seemed absolutely unimaginable back in the 1990s.


Whichever way I cast my hypothetical vote, one of the two corporate backed candidates is going to win. I find myself hoping that Obama wins, simply becuase the other guy is pretty much evil personified. But then, the lesser of two evils is still evil, right?

All the best my friend, and good luck whatever the outcome.


Thomas G. Clark (Another Angry Voice)