Rob Prince's Blog |
||||||
October 5, 2008 A Month Later... The Campaign With McCain and Palin plunging in the polls which now give Obama-Biden a 6-7 point edge, Sarah Palin has taken the even lower road of her traditionally gutter politics, resorting to red-baiting - the kind of guilt-by-association smears which have long been a part of the American political tradition, especially since the McCarthyite period of the 1950s (although it began much earlier). Both in California and here in Colorado yesterday, Palin began a campaign to associate Obama with Bill Ayres, a former SDS Weatherman from Chicago who, with Bernadine Dorn, remains active in radical fringe politics in Chicago. Ayres' politics have moderated considerably over forty years. He's written a few book on public education and has remained active - if somewhat obsolete - in Chicago politics. Dorn, who does not seem to have learned much from her 60s-70s political experiences, now a professor, has been able to maintain a bit of a media presence for no good reason I can tell. She often appears with a number of other washed out, burnt out left overs of the sixties and seventies - Kathleen Cleaver, Ward Churchill and Company, and others all of whom didn't organize very much in their day but knew how to play the media well enough. They still do. Gutter Politics Again I would be surprised if the Obama-Ayres connection gets much traction and will sway voters much. It is a terribly warn out tactic. Ayres wasn't particularly important or influential in his Weatherman days and thus, to make a case of the connection requires exaggerating his role in the movement at that time (and that of the Weathermen). He's gone on to do some interesting local organizing in Chicago and his writings on the challenges of teaching in the Chicago public school system are worth reading. Anyhow that isn't the point. The point is to link Obama in whatever way possible with Osama Bin Laden and terrorism. The attempts have been ludicrous - the attacks on his former minister, the fact that his middle name is `Hussein', his tangential relationship in Hawaii with an organizer from the Communist Party USA, and now making noise about Ayres. Just the crudest form of gutter politics now based upon the latest style of American racism: anti-Arab and anti-Islamic racism, which permeates the national political scene. Of course it's quite a stretch to connect Ayres to Osama Bin Laden. But, based upon the logic that all terrorist roads lead to the Saudi construction multi-millionaire, Republican strategists are confident that simply the accusation of such links will take away votes from Obama in swing states. They are banking on historical precedent, with a deep faith in the political stupidity of the American people to believe anything they hear. And even if the American people don't believe every lie Palin tells, it will due to soe confusion among voters who are simply not sure how to separate fact from fiction. That is the main goal. It is not necessary to prove the point, merely to create enough doubt so as to influence voting patterns. ie...Obama might not be a Moslem because his middle name is Hasan..but then again, why would he have such a middle name? (A common middle name in Africa). Palin's role since her coming out party at the Republican Party Convention has been two fold - first to take the attention off of McCain's sagging image and to create the impression that Obama is running against Palin and not McCain. This approach worked for a while but appears to be losing traction. Secondly it was to launch the kind of racist personalized attack against Obama that McCain would like to do himself but has been advised not to. So Palin becomes, as it has been described, `McCain's pitbull.' She gives up to every rightwing Christian fundamentalist bigot in America that they too have a chance to reach high office in America at a time when the `Blacks' are taking over. The message, even before Palin opens her mouth (for the campaign's sake she's better off not doing that) is: "look what we're losing - people like me - white working class Christians - and look what we're gaining `a black whose middle name is Hussein and who pals around with bomb-throughing radicals. " In other words, in that great Republican tradition, her candidacy plays primarily - no uniquely - on fear. The Functional Idiot Syndrome And for a while it looked like the strategy just might stick. After all, look at the warm welcome that the country and the media gave early on to Palin's nomination, energizing the Republican religious conservative base. As for `historical precedent' - the pacer setters in this respect include Ronald Reagan, Dan Quayle, and of course our current disaster, George Bush. If people with such low intellectual thresholds could reach the highest two offices of the United States, why not Palin, who rivals Quayle in coming as close to a functional idiot as any figure in modern American political history? As she tries to connect with America's working people in order to peel off some of those `Reagan Democrats' for McCain, what I find most striking about Palin is her great sense of pride and confidence in her own ignorance. In her recent debate with Joe Biden she basically showed, once again, that given the opportunity to give `a heavily rehearsed performance', she has what it takes to throw out one-liner, excelling at reading other people's scripts. As the Financial Times aptly put it "With more `darn it' amd `say it ain't so, Joe' quips in 90 minutes than has been heard during the entire campaign, the Alaska governor's folksy showing put an end to the the media's `Palin death watch'. McCain's `Palin Horse Stumbles' Perhaps she got a little bump, but all the same, Palin's star is falling and fast and her popularity appears to have been short-lived. As that happens, McCain's chances of riding the Palin horse to victory evaporate before our very eyes and will continue to do so as John McCain has proven himself to be little more than Palin without boobs - a shallow, right wing politican, a militarist of the first order without much knowledge of foreign policy (like Bush), a man with an explosive temper who really doesn't have very many ideas of his own and has proven something of an embarrassment whenever he's been carted out to defend himself. In short - a lightweight who will, like Bush be something of a front man for policy makers behind the scenes, the Cheneys of the future. A number of factors come into play - among them the weakened position of the Christian fundamentalist right whom she represents combined with the bigger issues - the unknown dimension of the ever-deepening financial crisis (despite the bailout) and although McCain and the Republicans would like to argue otherwise - what continues to be a failed policy in Iraq, the virtual collapse of the US backed government in Afghanistan, the burgeoning crisis in Pakistan and the inability of the Bush Administration to make any progress whatsoever on resolving the Israeli Palestinian crisis. Will Americans Vote Against Their Class Interests Again? One of the great successes of the Republicans since Ronald Reagan has been to get the American people to vote against their own class interests. My speculation is this results from the fact that the united States, is/was the most powerful economy in the world where even the situation of the working class and poor has often been much better than that of people in other countries. It is not that the economy did not count, it simply did not count for as much and people could be peeled off to vent their anger on this or that exotic issues (gun control, abortion, Israel, charter schools). Of course some of that continues, but as the economic crisis deepens it appears that more and more it will take center stage in the minds of people. The fact of the matter is the McCain-Palin campaign is going poorly on every count. Short of funds McCain had to pull campaign resources out of Michigan. Worse states that looked `in the bag' - Florida and Indiana - are no longer in that category. Likewise in North Carolina, Virginia and here in Colorado McCain's support appears to be slipping. The rise in unemployment with 159,000 Americans losing jobs last month didn't help him either. But nothing hurt him more than his completely inept handling of the financial crisis. The realities of American life are wiping the smirks off of McCain and Palin's faces and the fears that many had of a McCain-Palin Administration no longer seem so dire. Let the McCain-Palin crumbling begin...if only so we can concentrate on how little an Obama-Biden Administration will be able to accomplish (but with a little more elbow room for us to maneuvre in)
_________________________________________ October 4, 2008 A Month Later... The blog has been down for nearly a month, the result of computer woes which it appears are partly solved (new machine). But as computers mimic life in that going from one machine to another is simply like going from one set of problems to another, there is a whole other set of issues that has arisen with the new machine. Boring, I know. In the past month the news has been dominated by the financial crisis and the dulling of Sarah Palin's star...(and with it Obama's bounce in the polls). Just a few thoughts on both. I'll try to explore both later in some depth. Concerning the financial crisis.. As it broke, one of my friends, Jamie Roth, a retired prof from Regis College, suggested in an email that the whole thing was contrived, that the timing was suspicious, that the crisis was not so serious as it seemed. The logic here - others have argued along similar lines - is that the Bush Administration provoked the crisis so as to be able, in the waning days of power, to shape the financial direction of the country in the more and more likely case that Obama wins. A new Democratic administration would essentially have to accept the deal crafted - with some difficulty it is true - between the Bush Administration and Congress, rammed through with bi-partisan support. The tempting hook of this logic is that it nicely reflects Naomi Klein's thesis put forth in the `Shock Doctrine' - her best selling book. According to Klein's hypothesis - taken seriously enough by Stiglitz that he gave the book a generally positive review - we have been living in a epoch where the `forces of evil' have developed a strategic approach to crises, be they man made (wars, collapses of nations) or natural (hurricanes, tsunamis, the like). A pattern emerges that one can see already from the September 1973 Chilean coup (actually it started before in Indonesia in the late 1960s) to 9-11 to the S. Asian tsunami. Some kind of event takes place which traumatizes a country or region. While the population remains in shock, unable to adequately respond to events, plans, which have been rotting in some neo-con's drawer to radically restructure society both politically and economically quickly emerge, putting in place what amounts to neo-liberal policies (free markets usually free of state intervention or with a modest amount). Thus it was that conservative University of Chicago type economists, trying to tip toe around (and later justify) all the blood running in the streets, hit the ground running in Indonesia and Chile, the public education system of New Orleans was privatized and entire fishing communities on the east coast of India were replaced a chain of multi-national owned and built hotels. The argument in the case of the financial crisis goes more or less along the same lines...By not buying out Lehman Brothers - that financial institution that saw its birth hoarding slave-produced cotton before the Civil War - and letting it go under an unnecessary panic was created. As the crisis deepened it permitted the Bush Administration to put forth its own kind of financial bail out - one that put very few conditions on the financial sector and gave Paulson extraodinary powers to determine how $700 billion in taxpayers money would be spent. As many have noted, the Administration let home owners facing mortgage foreclosurers hang by their tootsies but came in decisively to bail out the banks and financial institutions that had crafted most of the bad loans in that sector. The key point here is that the Bush Administration understood that some kind of government bail out was necessary but hoped to accomplish it with as little state control of the private sector as possible. They understood that sooner or later a bailout was likely (because the depth of this financial crisic continues to reveal itself every week). Realistic enough to understand that things could not go on like this indefinitely, the Bush Administration engineered what might be called a `pre-emptive financial strike' on the American people (and the world). It seems to have worked quite well (from their perspective). Yes, in the end, because of the first rejection of the plan by the House of Representative (in response to a national protest in which calls to congressmen were coming in at a rate of 200 to 1 against the proposal), a few crumbs wer thrown to the masses that the Democrats are trying to give the impression are quite significant. They are not. But the precedent has been set: the government has given $700 billion to the market with very few strings. Thus the state will intervene in the markets but very politely and with few strings attached. With mild interest, John Maynard Keynes will turn over a few times in his grave. eorge Bush, Henry Paulson and Bank of America will be content. Of course the financial crisis will also deepen as so little of the fundamentals - a financial sector still out of control - have been addressed. So...was it planned? Or did `things' just unfold this way? I don't know that we'll ever know, but then, does it really matter? ___________________________________________ September 9, 2008 The Sarah Palin Chronicles (2) Well..it happens and it has happened. I am not yet ready to retract what was written here about Sarah Palin but it seems that 1. A picture of her in a red white and blue bikini holding a sniper’s rifle is one of those digital, easily done frauds. After hearing about it from several friends, I found it on-line, copied it and then sent it out to several dozen people. Several of them wrote that they sent it out to hundreds of others, only to find out later it was some kind of fabrication. Sorry about that one 2. There is also the reports of Palin having pressured a local librarian in Wassila, Alaska to purge books from the local library with threats to have the librarian fired if she refused. I’ve now read a number of different accounts of this incident which vary from (1. It didn’t happen at all 2. It happened but the list (see below) is inaccurate 3. It happened just as described below So..for starters… I appreciate the warning signals coming from Laurie Sirotkin, Cheryl Kasson, and several old college friends (among others) on all this. It certainly pays to be careful and it will take time to separate fact from fiction, spin and hearsay from truth. So let us, starting with myself, be patient and more careful to weed out fiction from fact. I have a feeling that in the end the truth will be strange enough. In time we’ll find out what is accurate and what is not about Ms. Palin. No need to exaggerate her history or values. And despite some inconsistencies, a picture is emerging. What are the more salient points here…that can be said with some certainty 1. She is an avowed Christian fundamentalist and certainly of extreme right wing of the Republican Party – that wing that stands for continuing the Bush foreign and domestic policies and keeping the Christian Fundamentalist wing of that party front and center 2. She has given a surprising amount of energy to John McCain’s presidential run. Her youth contrasts with his geriatric posture, while I’ll leave it to others to determine whether she’s a great beauty or not, frankly, the bottom line is she is not as ugly as McCain, suggesting that the Republicans are more than simply a bunch of conservative old men. 3. She has no foreign policy experience whatsoever and her experience in government on all levels is quite limited. 4. Her acceptance speech, to the surprise of many, including myself, changed the nature of the presidential contest and reminded people that the Republicans do have a shot at winning this election which means that she has become a force that has to be dealt with On hearing Palin’s acceptance speech (I wrote about it below – on issues it is no surprises to none exist, although the delivery was strong) and then seeing McCains numbers improve in the polls a number of friends and acquaintances got very nervous. An old college friend with whom I reconnected after some 40 years, Carole Ashinaze, worried that Palin would energize the Christian fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party and that, if united, the Republicans could possibly beat Obama. A colleague at work – a sincere and humane liberal who has opposed the war in Iraq from the outset and taken an strong stand against the Patriot Act and the erosion of civil liberties here at home was nothing short of distraught this morning. I’ve never seen him so depressed. He was talking as if the election was already lost to Obama and that America’s goose-stepping future was assured. Others with whom I am in contact, mostly through the blog have expressed similar shades of nervousness and pessimism. Then there is my good friend Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni (Shi’ite Imam here in Denver) from Iraq who doesn’t think – where it concerns the people of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine - that either Obama or McCain will make much of a difference. And he ushers forth (or will in his upcoming entry in the blog world) a convincing set of facts of the candidates positions on the subject to drill his point home. That view varies from some old Middle Eastern (Arab, Iranian) friends who openly support Obama despite his limitations, but I would expect that in the Middle East, there is a sense that regardless of who wins the presidency, not much will change – either in Israeli-Palestine and Iraq with the danger of a looming confrontation with Iran still very much alive. In any case, despite his limitations from my view point, as mentioned below, I still support Obama and hope he wins. At the least he’ll give the country and the world a little breathing room. The US military juggernaut in the Middle East will be slowed. I don’t expect much of the repressive legislation to be quickly undone but there’s a good chance that Guantanamo will be dismantled and that torture will no longer be the official policy of the US military. The labor movement here will be given a bit of space to organize and perhaps, perhaps, the disgrace which is the healthcare system in this country will be seriously addressed. Obama can win. He has a lot going for him. And while I’ve never been much of a fan of Joe Biden – Biden is a tough and profoundly knowledgeable Senator. He has already – in a manner admittedly more symbolic than real – challenged AIPAC ( a little anyhow). More important is the fact that neither Biden nor Obama (despite the latter’s fiasco before AIPAC) are particularly in bed with the folks in the Democratic Leadership Council – those masterminds have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for the Dems in 2000 and 2004. In 2004 the Republicans did a nasty but clever thing: they went after John Kerry’s military record – and despite the fact that the campaign was fabricated, were able to turn enough of the electorate against him so that Bush could steal a second election, this time in Ohio rather than in Florida. This time¸ the Republicans appear to be doing something similar: attacking Obama for the fact that he was (rather than wasn’t!!) a community organizer. In both cases they target the Democratic candidates strength, try to turn it into a weakness. In Kerry’s case, the Republicans managed to put John Kerry – who was a bright and capable candidate and far more liberal than his campaign suggested – on the defensive. This is what Sarah Palin is trying to do to Obama, to actually discredit him for having spent time learning about people’s issues as a community organizer. Rather than defend her record (which even with the inconsistencies mentioned above is indefensible because there is NOTHING THERE), she goes on the attack, proving that the adage `the best defense is an offense’ still has some truth to it. McCain gets his female vice presidential candidate to play the race card! So what is Obama to do …to turn the tide around in his (and our) favor once again? Frankly there is much he can and should do. He should continue to present his program for the economy and for ending the war in Iraq to the American people….and he should (in my humble opinion) go blow for blow with the Republicans on the issues, on the failures of the past eight years both domestically and internationally of which we all are keenly aware. McCain can be beaten. Listening to him speak these last months I am astounded by his superficiality, his absence of depth and his unrepentant militarism. I would have thought he might be stronger on foreign policy. He isn’t. Indeed, there isn’t much there at all. Of course we’ve just (kind of) elected one of the shallowest, politically ignorant, ideologically bigoted people in American history to the presidency twice and it is possible that the great people of this country can and will do it again. But it need not be. So…..we’ve got a lot of work to do. What else is new? So let’s do it. As for the Palin Chronicles, they will continue. And together we’ll get Sarah Palin into sharper focus (that is if there really is anything worth focusing on)… __________ September 6, 2008 (2) The Sarah Palin Chronicles (1) This is the beginning of a series. What is true is that most of us - in the USA and beyond - don't know much about the Republican vice presidential candidate and hopeful, Sarah Palin, currently the governor of Alaska. It seems she was chosen to try to win the working class vote away from Barack Obama for John McCain. Although she gave what I thought was a vapid speech (no economic policy, just alot of one-liners) I have to admit it was a strong, assertive delivery, a classic example of what I call the MacDonald Phenomenon: the ability of the American economy to very efficiently package garbage. And here in Palin is the political version of a big mac. Attractive, well packaged but if you taste enough, it's liable to kill you. I also admit a certain modest degree of contrition. I confess having sent an email with a picture of Palin dressed in a red, white and blue bikini holding a sniper's rifle. Turns out that picture is probably a cut and paste job and the characterization of Palin it suggests, while true, not formally accurate. With that in mind I've decided do a bit of research, to share what I learn of Palin's wisdom, her contribution to the common good in Alaska. I've already gotten a fair amount of help on this project from a number of friends from Steamboat Springs to Rockland County NY that have started the research project. So, together let's see if we can look into the eyes of Sarah Palin and see her soul. For starters, I include an email from an old friend, Michael Myerson, writing about Palin's literary tastes, or lack there of. This from Myerson: "Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah
Palin tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely,
all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska. When Baker refused to remove the
books from the shelves, Palin tried to fire her. The story was reported
in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net website." September 6, 2008 (1) Paul Krugman on the McCain-Palin Attack Strategy (note: writing in yesterday's NY Times, economist and Bush Administration critique Paul Krugman sketches out the Republican Party strategy for attacking the Obama-Biden ticket. It is essentially a class attack (not racial - or at least not yet) to paint Obama as `an elitist' while McCain and Palin try to paint themselves as `the people's' ticket. Harder for McCain who can't remember how many homes he owns, easier, but not convincing for Palin either. But in a clever way [is Karl Rove at it again] it puts Obama and Biden on the defensive) The Resentment Strategy Author: PAUL KRUGMAN Abstract: Paul Krugman Op-Ed column contends Republican anger is based on perception that Democrats look down their noses at regular people; holds what Republican Party is selling is pure politics of resentment; argues GOP is still party of Nixon; contends presidential-vice presidential ticket of Sen John McCain and Gov Sarah Palin can very possibly ride Nixonian resentment into upset election victory in what should be overwhelmingly Democratic year. Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts -- the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business -- really keep a straight face while denouncing "Eastern elites"? Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, "marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu" -- that was between his second and third marriages -- really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn't think small towns are sufficiently "cosmopolitan"? Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself -- until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans -- really portray herself as running against the "Washington elite"? Yes, they can. (for the rest of the piece, click here) ____________________ September 5, 2008 A Taste Of Denver: Thank God It's Over (6) Some Thoughts On How Obama Beat Hillary Clinton Lost in the shuffle - and the struggle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination - is the fact that one of the two major American political parties has just nominated the first Black candidate for the presidency in American history. If Obama wins, he, his wife and two children will come to occupy a residence built almost entirely by slave labor, the appropriately named `White House’. While the United States remains a nation based on a foundation of racial and ethnic discrimination that remains a thorny presence in American life, Obama’s achievement of winning the Democratic nomination is both a statement how far the nation has come and a symbol of the social struggle that remains to be completed. Among the things the United States might offer to the global community some day - is an example of how a nation - all of us, white, black, brown, red and everything in between overcame a powerful heritage of discrimination. We’re not there yet - far from it - but we’re on our way. Whatever his political limitations - especially where it concerns the
degree to which Obama has bought into the Bush Middle East foreign policy
- Barack Obama successfully captured the political imagination of the
majority of the Democratic Party - and much of the country. It remains
to be seen whether he’ll have enough momentum to win the presidency
against what is certain to be yet another Republican presidential bid
based upon fear and militarism. So much of the country’s progressive
energy went into supporting Obama - from the unions, peace groups, minorities
that the opposition outside the Democratic Party found itself generally
marginalized. Hillary Slips, Bill Blows His Top What are the factors that can explain Obama’s dramatic triumph over Hillary Clinton? The Clintons - both Bill and Hillary - h ad prepared for a Hillary run at the presidency for nearly a decade. They appeared to hold most of the cards in the Democratic deck in their hands. Hillary had won over the support of the Democratic Party machine (there is such a thing) nationwide. She had collected an enormous war chest and of course had the close cooperation of one of the country’s shrewdest political operatives of modern times in her husband. As recently as a year ago she appeared un-stoppable. There were some key elements to Hillary’s decline and Obama’s `ascent’. 1. The mood of the country - and most particularly of the base of the Democratic Party - had shifted dramatically over the past eight years. It amounted to a nationwide grassroots revolt against the Bush policies (while Democrats in the Congress continued to vote for many Bush initiatives). On the top of the list of issues propelling this revolt was opposition to the war in Iraq, to Bush Administration practices endorsing and extending the use of torture, concern about the consequences of the Patriot Act on Civil Rights, and more and more in the later years of the Bush Presidency, the erosion of the economy. The Clintons failed to take these shifts enough into account and when they finally did (in the areas that they did) it was too late. The prime example: Hillary Clinton never publicly came out against the Bush Administration led invasion of Iraq. She could not shake her image as a supporter of the war (in part because she is) while Obama - whose record on the war was not exactly stellar either - was able to claim that at the outset he voted against the war. 2. Although the general line of the Democratic Party - defined to a great extent by the Democratic Leadership Council - has remained surprisingly consistent over the past 20 years - there have been - as a result of largely of pressure from below and two failed presidential bids (Gore, Kerry) - some important changes in the leadership of the Democratic Party itself which gave Obama an opening. Specifically, when Howard Dean became party chair and shifted the party’s focus to extending the party’s base in 50 states, it gave Obama a chance to tap into the new elements joining the party, particularly youth. In a like manner, Obama learned from Dean’s 2004 presidential run, and most especially, Dean’s use of the internet for fund-raising. On this front from the very outset, Obama’s campaign left Hillary’s far behind in the dust. One other `technically related development’ that seems to have hurt Hillary Clinton. There was no `YouTube’ in 2004, or hardly. But in this campaign people with fancy cell phones or digital video cameras could film campaign incidents and minutes later post them on the internet for tens of thousands (or more) people to instantly see. This undermined Bill Clinton’s credibility. Bill Clinton has reputation for a very short fuse behind the scenes and often blows up. In 2004 he could do this - let’s say in Atlanta - and the impact did not go beyond local media sources. But with YouTube the whole nation could see his temper tantrums in Boston, Buffalo, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Chicago, Omaha, Oklahoma City, Steamboat Springs and Elko Nevada in a matter of simultaneously. And the man looked out of control. And he looked out of control because he was out of control. Clinton's Underestimate Obama 3. As important, the Clintons and the Democratic Party leadership serious under-estimated Obama’s poise and political sophistication. Bill Clinton has met his strategizing match in Barack Obama. Obama was able to maneuver deftly through the Democratic Party minefield of corporate interests, unions, AIPAC, Black and Chicano caucuses. It was this quality as well as his considerable oratory abilities that was key. In the end it was a primary battle between the Democratic Party’s old guard and established politicians and operatives against the party’s rebels and new elements. In such contests, the old guard wins 9 times out of 10, maybe more. Barack Obama had just enough support and political savvy to sneak through and defeat Hillary. It wasn’t by much. Coming into the Denver convention, Obama had several goals, among the main ones: 1. Neutralize the Clintons and unite the party around his candidacy. He appears to have achieved all three. Although he gave the Clinton’s a role in the convention, he chose Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate (rather than Hillary or several others the Clinton’s had suggested). This was also something of a blow to the Democratic Leadership Council as well. If Obama wins the election he will replace Bill Clinton as what one might consider to be the primary voice of the Democratic Party in the nation. Clinton’s bitterness at being so sidelined is palpable. Concerning Obama’s agenda, it is a clear break in both tone and content from the legacy of the Bush Administration, especially on domestic policy. Expect an Obama presidency to move quickly on two domestic issues - health care (his healthcare program more or less) and legislation making it easier for unions to organize. We can also anticipate a change in tone, an administration less willing to be the handmaiden of the financial, military and corporate sectors (these sectors might get taxed a bit more). It is in the foreign policy arena that his policies have been the most disappointing, and we can expect little progress on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking or a new more tempered policy towards Iran (although it is not clear that Obama would want to bomb Iran the way that the Bush Administration would like to). Still we can expect more cooperation between an Obama Administration and traditional US allies - Europe, Japan etc and perhaps a break on the Bush slide into renewing the Cold War with Russia. There are indications he’ll move in the direction of signing the Kyoto Protocols on the environment. ____________________ September 4, 2008 A Taste Of Denver: Thank God It's Over (5) Obama and the Left - or, Don't Ask What Obama Can Do For You But What You Can Do For Obama. Don't Whine, Organize There is a left in the United States today – social forces and movements organizing and agitating for deep going social change at home and a more peaceful foreign policy abroad - in both cases challenging the basic precepts of the `cowboy' capitalist society in which we find ourselves, tossed by the winds of history. It is vibrant, flexible, dedicated and to use a word I can’t stand `creative’. Its social and political chemistry is also `evolving’ in that it is a far cry today from what it was in the past and continues to evolve and change forms, occasionally actually to learn from its past and to adjust to an ever and quickly changing global political landscape. Often unappreciated is the fact that it exists both beyond and within the Democratic Party. But mostly it is small in size and weak in overall political influence, currently with its fair share of charlatans and other forms of low life. Why should the left not have the sacred right to its own forms of incompetency and oppurtunism any less than other political trends? Despite these oft overlooked facts, in sickness and in health, in altered states or sober, oftentimes in rage and frustration, until death do I part, I would like to believe that I am, in my own modest way, a part of it - although what that entails practically means less and less by the hour. But for the past 20-5 years (maybe longer) - in large measure through no fault of their own- the social movements have been rather narrow in their base and modest in influence. While there have been upsurges, especially in the 1980s (Latin American solidarity especially with Nicaragua and El Salvador, the anti-nuclear movement of the same decade), not even these periods of intensified activity compare with the 1960s or the 1930s, the latter being the most profound social movement in the past 100 years. The challenge now as it has been for decades is to broaden and strengthen these movements – and as Martin Luther King Jr. tried to do, to find the ways to unify them into a more coherent force in American life. Wanted: A Bigger Social Movement When the social movement has been broad, militant and low stupidity index, it has been able to pressure the Democrats (and some Republicans) in power to implement social change. Such were the series of radical reforms undertaken by Roosevelt – the implementation of Social Security, government jobs programs, limiting the speculation in the finance and banking sector – and in the 1960s (Voting Rights Act, War on Poverty, forcing the government to end its immoral and genocidal war in Vietnam – 3,000,000 Vietnamese killed ). Since the 1960s for a variety of reasons, although the objective conditions of the American people have deteriorated over time, and the international situation has become more unstable and US foreign policy taken on what can only be considered criminal dimensions, the movement has been smaller. These are not merely academic reflections. Without a strong social movement `encouraging’ him on, there are rather severe limits as to what an Obama presidency can accomplish once in office. Given that he will have to face a series of obstacles – the power of the military industrial complex, the ravenous ever expanding appetite of the financial sector even as that sector is declining, narrow bigoted lobbies like the NRA and AIPAC and a still ideologically driven, politically experienced and well financed right wing. The majority of the American people might support Obama and his vision for change, but the weight of the political class pickled with corruption and greed will probably gain more access. And now we’re living in a country where the erosion of civil rights – spearheaded by Republicans but strongly backed by most Democrats in Congress - only makes matters worse. Not Since McGovern in 1972 At present, the weakness of the social movements makes it unlikely to sustain a serious national candidate for the presidency from the left, Obama is, probably as good as it gets (and we’ll see what he can achieve if elected). To find the last openly left – or left liberal Democratic candidate for the presidency – one has to go back to the 1972 George McGovern campaign with its clear and unambiguous anti-Vietnam war message. Much of the Democratic Party did not support McGovern then, actively sabotaged his campaign (as Lieberman is trying to do to Obama today). Indeed since 1972 the Democratic Party leadership has gone out of its way not to let anyone like McGovern get near the presidency if they could help it. When – responding to the deepening all round crisis in American society, liberal, left of center candidate did sneak through (Gore, Kerry) - they were pressured to `tone down’ their message to such a degree that it was lost on the electorate. This strategy – the main line of thinking of the Democratic Leadership Council – has largely succeeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the last two presidential elections before this one. Obama has had – to a certain degree anyhow – make similar compromises in the name of `party unity’. Maybe They'll Get Bigger? Perhaps in the coming period these social movements will grow again. Hard to tell. It seems that after a forty year hiatus, the labor movement is beginning to increase its numbers. Most radicals today don’t think much about labor, but frankly, without a strong and progressive labor movement, social movements are severe hampered in what they can accomplish. When labor (finally!) raises its head (and fist) the ruling class takes note – thus the hysterical reaction of Colorado Republicans and the Denver Post at the success of an organizing campaign that brought 32,000 public employees into the ranks of public sector unions. Likewise, the activities of main civil rights movements have been somewhat dormant on the whole, living on past accomplishments but now there is the beginning of what might be the most profound civil rights movement in half a century – the immigrants rights movement. The best thing progressives – really any one who cares about the future of this nation – can do is to build these movements into more of a political force than they are currently, so that they will play more of a role in the future. Some one like Barack Obama – negotiating between powerful and conservative political and economic forces with only weak social movements pushing him to the left – have to pick and chose a couple of issues on which to make their social agenda. Without stronger social movements to nudge Obama’s progressive agenda ahead, his options for changing the current political climate in the USA are limited. It appears that there are three themes that an Obama administration will try to address and implement: legislation to make union organizing both legal and easier (which will not only strengthen the labor movement but also the political clout of the Democratic Party), a comprehensive medical care program (again it does not appear that it will be universal coverage outside the framework of insurance companies – the best solution – but still, more extensive coverage) and ending the war in Iraq. None of these would be easily accomplished. Great American Presidents: Few and Far Between Think back on the few great liberal reformers who became presidents. They are few and far between and their `moment in the sun’ precisely short. Two of them, Lincoln and Kennedy, were assassinated in office. Roosevelt survived such a dark fate, but he had the encouragement of one of the most extraordinary first ladies in American history pushing him left, Eleanor Roosevelt, and perhaps more importantly the most powerful, labor-led social movement in modern American history, led in large measure (or at least influenced) by socialists and communists, now largely either forgotten or disparaged for their role. Obama is operating in an entirely different historical atmosphere, one in which the great social movements of today are largely outside of the United States and in large measure in opposition to US economic and political policies, while the social movements at home are weaker. So we all have a lot of work to do don’t we? And we can’t place all the responsibility on Barack Obama. (to be continued)
September 3, 2008 A Taste Of Denver: Thank God It's Over (4) Obama: As Good As It Gets For A Dem These Days Watching the Democratic Party Convention one could easily – and wrongly – conclude that not much happened. There was very little debate, most of the talks, presentations were scripted, Barack Obama’s candidacy had been decided, the police and security presence overdone to the extreme…the whole thing essentially contrived, paid for in large measure by behind the scenes (and actually not-so behind the scenes) corporate donations. I gave this kind of analysis to one of my students, a volunteer at the Pepsi Center who responded `everything you say is true, but, to be honest, I’m having a blast’ – this from one of my more socially committed and class conscious students! Other young people that happen to regularly pass through my life – there are a fair number – simply didn’t want to hear any criticisms I might have of Obama’s foreign policy – this nonsense about taking troops from Iraq to put them in Afghanistan or his `giving away’ of Jerusalem to the Israeli government – his well documented shift to from the liberal left to the center after the primaries. Of course that doesn’t particularly stop me from speaking my mind – but it is becoming clear that only six months to a year or so into an Obama administration (although it is not carved in stone, I believe he’ll win) will some of Obama’s true believers – there is a whole army of them – come down to earth and come to grips with his limitations. Besides, I’ll vote for the guy myself. Any temptation to support McKinney (Green Party candidate) evaporated watching her behind the scenes political opportunism here in Denver during the week of the convention and as for Nader – well, I’m glad he’s there and I do support including him in the presidential debate. He probably knows more about the issues than any of the others. He gave a hard hitting and accurate critique of the Dems (and Obama) at the University of Denver on August 27 before 4300, including Nancy, her father Lowell, our friend Ibrahim and myself. But I won’t vote for him. The Obama Phenomenon Whatever his political limitations (more on that later), Barack Obama has done something that hasn’t happened in America since assassination cut off the presidential bid of Robert Kennedy in 1968: he’s captured the political imagination of not just the Democratic delegates to Denver, but of much of the country and has thus become a force in American politics that far outweighs some of the positions he holds. He’s been able to mobilize youth in an unprecedented fashion. So much of the progressive energy of this nation this past year went into supporting Obama – from the unions, peace and environmental groups, minorities – especially after Super Tuesday when it appeared that Obama actually had a shot at defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party Nomination. With so much of the progressive – even left – energy mobilizing behind Obama, organized left opposition outside of the Democratic Party found itself generally marginalized, thus the modest showing of such groups in Denver last week where despite claims to the contrary, social movement participation in the demonstrations (see yesterday’s entry) was small to modest. Indeed, there were no large scale mobilizations to Denver. Most social movements – like the great immigration rights movement out of Los Angeles that mobilized more than a million people to demonstrate two years ago – simply stayed home or sent only symbolic delegations. Pretty modest turnout, all in all. Nader: Good Politics No Base And that begs the broader question: although Ralph Nader can articulate the policy limits of the Democratic Party as accurately as anyone, what he has only poorly explained is why so much of the country stands with Barack Obama. If 4300 people came out to see Ralph in Denver, 85,000 went to Invesco Field to `witness history’ and from what I can glean another 40,000 to 50,000 would have attended if they could have gotten in. And it’s not just the numbers. The Clintons Blew It What can explain Obama’s dramatic triumph over Hillary Clinton? Barak Obama beat one of the most experienced (it’s true!), well-oiled and well financed political teams in American political history – Bill and Hillary Clinton. He knocked the Clintons off center-stage of the Democratic Party. Although the political implications of that shift have yet to be revealed in all their aspects, what can be said is that – particularly if he wins the presidency - Obama achieved one of the greatest political upsets in the nation’s history. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer pair of political scoundrels. Nor could it have happened without a broad based revolt within the Democratic Party against the Clintons, their machine (for that is exactly what they have cultivated, put together and thought they had perfected) and their spiritual base: the Democratic Leadership Council. The Clintons – both Bill and Hillary – had prepared for a Hillary run at the presidency even before Bill stepped down from the office in 2000 handing the baton to the little idiot who’s been in office since. One has to wonder what deal the Clinton’s made with each other? That Hillary would stay in the marriage with Bill despite the latter’s anatomical intern probing with Cuban cigars in exchange for Bill managing Hillary’s presidential bid? Who knows? But as recently as a year ago, it appeared that Hillary Clinton held most of the cards in the Democratic Party deck and that she would not win but sail to the presidential nomination, only to be defeated by `a nobody’ – some inexperienced kid from Chicago. Please, this happens in the movies but not in American politics and not to the Clintons who had successfully weathered so many political and personal storms that they thought themselves invincible. Hillary had carefully cultivated and easily won the support of much of the Democratic Party political machine nationwide. She had accumulated an enormous war chest and of course had the close cooperation of one of America’s all time shrewdest (and lewdest?) political operatives of modern times – her husband. With so much political support, a convention in Denver looked to be very much of a pro-Clinton affair with Colorado considered very friendly territory. Colorado: Mirror of the Nation This pattern was clear, played out here in Colorado as it was nationwide. There is a funny story about former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, a strong Clinton supporter. Sensing which way the political winds were blowing, the city’s first Black mayor, took down his Clinton sign already in April. Before that time, he and wife Wilma were an integral part of Colorado’s Clinton team, doing what they do best – behind the scenes arm-twisting for Hillary. The Clintons also have very close ties with the political legal operatives, Steve Farber and Norm Brownstein and often stay at one of their homes when in the area. Denver’s US Congresswoman Diana De Gette was on board emerging as national co-chair of Hillary’s healthcare campaign. No doubt most of the above had visions of sugar plums – or more likely positions in a Clinton administration – dancing in their head. And while Federico Pena wouldn’t bite (he’d had a falling out with the Clintons), most of the Chicano leadership within the Democratic Party followed Webb’s lead as well. (to be continued tomorrow) ________________________ September 2, 2008 (2) A Taste Of Denver: Thank God It's Over (3): The Arrest and Manhandling of Democracy Now's Amy Goodman and Associates at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 1, 2008 Contact: **UPDATE** Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole
Salazar Goodman Charged with Obstruction; Felony Riot Charges Pending Against ST. PAUL--Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and producers Sharif Abdel All three were violently manhandled by law enforcement officers. Abdel On Tuesday, Democracy Now! will broadcast video of these arrests, as Goodman was arrested while questioning police about the unlawful Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous
and Democracy Now! forcefully rejects all of these charges as false and an Democracy Now! stands by Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and condemns this During the demonstration in which the Democracy Now! team was arrested, Amy Goodman is one of the most well-known and well-respected journalists Democracy Now! is a nationally-syndicated public TV and radio program Video of Amy Goodman's Arrest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ _________________________ September 2, 2008 A Taste Of Denver: Thank God It's Over (2) Although some of the activities and demonstrations in Denver during the Democratic Convention last week did draw people from around the country, the numbers at such events were generally small, and the social base of the activists narrow. Taken in its entirety, the overall organized opposition to the Democratic Convention was modest in size and scope. With few exceptions (see below) it didn't amount to much. Its impact on the convention itself was rather light. Although the opposition might not like to admit it – most of the political energy in Denver last week was not on the streets but at the Pepsi Center itself. Groups like the recently formed `Alliance for Real Democracy’, a loose coalition of groups and individuals, did a lot of good work in a short time, but overall the both the numbers of people on the streets were smaller than predicted and the political message they hoped to convey was muffled and often lacked clarity. This was especially the case of the group `Recreate 68’ which had predicted on several occasions that more than 20,000 people would attend their march and rally. According to several people in attendance, strip away the sizeable number of press and barely 500 came to hear political has-beens like Ward Churchill, Kathleen Cleaver and Cynthia McKinney deliver shrill and unfocused messages. Exceptions To the Rule There were four exceptions to this picture: 1. The march led by anti-Iraq War vets (in uniform) after a `Rage Against The Machine’ concert which took to the streets, 8000-to-10,000 strong, without a permit and marched peacefully and in a disciplined fashion the five miles from Denver’s coliseum on the north of town to the so-called Pepsi Center where the convention was taking place. The concert, organized by a group of youth calling themselves Tent City worked the concert to build the march in a creative way and then with the vets leading the long line which stretched for a mile, marched the entire distance, surrounded by police and other security forces. The vets delivered a letter to a representative of Barak Obama calling for an end to the Iraq War and for better treatment of vets. In marching this way, the `Tent City’ people effective challenged the constitutionality of a whole slew of laws passed to limit the rights of demonstrators and free speech. It was impressive. Efforts to co-opt the march – and there were some – went nowhere. 2. The same day, Wednesday, August 27, Ralph Nader, left presidential candidate for president, spoke to an audience of about 4500 enthusiastic supporters at the University of Denver’s Magnuss Arena. Although there were a number of stoned hippies from the 1960s (for whom I feel a certain affection), most of the audience was the non-bleached hair set, young activists in the main, disaffected not just by Bush Administration policies but also eight years of weak, spineless Democratic Party responses. Nancy Pelosi came under fire for taking the impeachment issue off the table, Hillary Clinton for her consistent and unapologetic support for the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act which undermines domestic civil rights. Besides Nader, actor Sean Penn, peace activist and Congressional candidate Cindy Sheehan (she’s challenging Pelosi’s seat in SF), and local musician Jello Biafra (among others) gave fine speeches. Penn’s was a bit long – but insightful, hitting again and again on the erosion of civil rights in the Bush years. He came short of endorsing Ralph Nader but did call for Nader’s inclusion in the debates – a demand I wholeheartedly support. Although the audience seemed quite familiar with Jello Biafra I had never heard of him. Walking to the podium, he looked (and sounded) like he could have grown up in Wheatridge (a largely white middle class suburb west of Denver). Jello Biafra? Where did that name come fome? Anyhow – whatever reservations I had about his name, he gave a coherent speech, a searing attack against Bush Administration policies. In some ways it was more direct and less self-serving than Nader’s remarks 3. On Thursday several thousand more people – in large measure Chicanos, many from the city’s Westside, with its long and deep radical history – marched for immigrant rights. They ended their march at Lincoln Park where speeches and music followed. Although it was a shadow of a similar march in Denver two years ago which brought out 80,000 – many of whom were mobilized by listening to Spanish-language radio – still, it was a show of force from one of the most – if not the most – oppressed constituencies in the country. Along with the Iraq-vets led demonstration the day before, this was the most politically significant `reminder’ to the delegates at the convention center – and the world at large – of the key issues that the next president will have to face. Although the numbers were respectable enough, the speeches at Lincoln Park were disappointing, lacking a clear focus. It appears that some of the biggest immigration rights groups in the country, who had come by bus from Los Angeles to participate, were denied access to the podium due to the `microphone hogging’ of some of the locally based organizers. Once again, Recreate 68 found itself isolated. Although its members were welcome to participate in the march, the organization was explicitly told by the march organizers they could not carry a banner or be among the sponsoring organizations. 4. Another group which held a series of information lectures that lasted the entire time of the convention was Progressive Democrats of America. In conjunction with The Nation magazine, the Progressive Dems brought an impressive array of activists and experts on many of the key issues of the day – healthcare, civil rights, Bush’s foreign policy. Although a formation within the Democratic Party trying to influence the party platform and candidates to the left, the weight of the Progressive Dems in the overall scheme of things seems rather light. As an indication, their events took place outside, not within the convention’s framework. Still I’m glad they were there and have heard that most of their events were well attended and interesting. On Thursday, the day that along with my father-in-law, Lowell Fey, I attended, I arrived just as Jesse Jackson was walking in the door. Jackson gave a powerful speech (he still can do that), reminding people of the struggles and sacrifices that preceded Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous `I Have A Dream’ speech. Wexler Throws A Few Crumbs to The Left Congressman Robert Wexler, who is introducing impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, was less impressive. The night prior on national tv he had mentioned Israel in a speech 20-30 times. I guess that was his predetermined role. Groveling to AIPAC aside, had Wexler called for impeachment a year ago, it might have made a difference’. To do so now, with just a few months of the Bush Presidency left, seems somewhat cynical, little more than throwing a few crumbs of nothing to the left. Banners calling for impeachment, demanding the US not attack Iran hung among others in the room. Later I read that someone had stolen the banner of the US Campaign Against The Occupation – the national organization opposed to the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (otherwise known as Palestine). Who took it down I wonder? It was consistent with the fact that for nearly a week in Denver the word `Palestine’ appears to have disappeared from the English language. (More on this in a later entry). I also couldn’t help noticing that while the discussions and presentations were interesting enough at the Central Presbyterian Church where the Progressive Dem’s held their meetings that, like in the convention itself, there was no place in their programs for questions from the audience and that while trying to appear flexible and moderate, that moderator John Nichols of the Nation acted a bit too much as a public censor. Although there were a few confrontations between demonstrators and the police – including several where it appeared the security forces seriously over-reacted, although flexing their muscles every day, the security response was somehow contained. Whether this was the case because Barack Obama purposefully put the breaks on police over-reaction (as I suspect he did) to avoid what could have been negative publicity or whether the city of Denver itself was restrained, is not clear. But already, what didn’t happen in the streets of Denver is sharply contrasted with is happening in Minnesota where there have been `pre-emptive’ police-FBI raids against demonstrators, arrests with charges of conspiracy (conspiracy to do WHAT?) and the arrest of many including Democracy Now announcer Amy Goodman. Still, what went on inside the Denver convention was in many ways more interesting and in many ways more decisive for the fate of the nation than what went on in the streets. The first Black American had been nominated for the presidency by one of the two major political parties. And this is, by any measure, historic and with potentially profound consequences for the nation and in some ways the fate of the earth. But more on that in the next installment. _______________________________________ September 1, 2008 A Taste Of Denver: Thank God It's Over (1) (note: this is the first of a series of articles on the recently completed Democratic Convention that nominated Barack Obama as its candidate for the presidency. Itr all happened so fast that it was a bit diffuclt to process...but i'll try) It’s over. Finally. The Denver Democratic Convention has receded into history. The media hype is finally dying down and life in Denver can back to usual – whatever that is. The delegates and press have left, the media barrage slowed to a trickle, Invesco Stadium quickly cleaned up to host yesterday's annual CU-CSU football game. No more overdone security, artificial (and unconstitutional) rules to keep demonstrators at bay. `Recreate 68’ – the bogus protest group – can can mercifully disintegrate to the oblivion it deserves. If convention demonstrators were kept from the delegates, the lobbyists were bothered with no such restrictions. They had a field day, making a mockery of those insipid laws limiting campaign financing. They have already spent $1.5 billion in total on this presidential election, on their way to top the $2.8 billion spent (or at least officially reported) last year. Through SEIU, the public employees union, Nancy and I had the possibility of witnessing history – of attending Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field with 85,000 others. We passed on that historic opportunity on hearing that we’d have to gather at 1 pm for an 8 pm speech. But the family was represented as Abbie, our younger daughter was present for the festivities and the speech. Instead, I wound up seeing it at the Denver Press Club with a couple of good friends, together with whom I had drifted downtown. Beers in hand, we watched with about 50 others. Other than the one woman who commented loudly enough for all to hear `have you ever heard more bullshit?’- the rest of `the crowd’, mostly local journalists, seemed generally pro-Obama. The loudest cheers from that group erupted them came as Obama called for equal pay for equal work for women. Mulling over just how historic was the historic speech, the three of us then wandered over to the nearby Grand Hyatt Hotel where we had difficulty getting past the security check (but finally did somehow pass muster) Chase Ergen, one of my students at D.U. had invited us to some kind of reception there. Curious, wanting to experience the atmosphere of at least one of those famed convention parties to see lobbying in action and drink free beer, I decided to accept.. Although Chase had frequently mentioned his father, I hadn’t put all the dots – or frankly any of the dots – together until I arrived at the Hyatt's penthouse. Ergen is the son of Charlie Ergen, the 55 year old founder and C.E.O. of Echo Star. Echo Star is one of the nation’s largest satellite telecommunications companies. Charlie Ergen, a former Frito-Lay analyst, gave up a future in potato chips in 1980, to sell satellite dishes, soon thereafter expanding into broadcasting, founded Echo Star. It appears that is the satellite tv business was more lucrative than selling those chemically scented sour-cream potato chips I can’t get enough of. According the Forbes Magazine 2008 survey, Charlie Ergen is the world’s 87th richest billionaire worth a cool $9.5 billion. Not bad for a company that did not exist a quarter of century ago although there is speculation that Echo Star might pass from the scene as quickly as it made its grand entrance. For all that, in this world of huge companies that come and go with the speed of light, Echo Star appears to currently be in a fight for its life – caught between Rupert Murdock’s media empire and Echo Star’s own financial backers. Held at the Peak’s Lounge, atop of the Grand Hyatt, the reception was hosted by Echo Star and several other telecommunication companies `in honor of’ the Congressional Black Caucus. Fine panaramic view of Denver and the Rockies. Echo Star had hosted several other parties like it the days before for labor and Chicano legislators, at the price of $10,000 an hour (or so I was told) for the lounge. It was a classic example of the kind of soft money lobbying that pervaded this (and many other) conventions. The food was fine, the drinks free, the jazz music outstanding, the company – except for Chase and two of his fellow D.U. student friends - somewhat dull – a lot of lawyers and accountants. The guests present included US Congressman John Conyers, his son, Congresswoman Eleanor Norton Holmes. It was a bit sad to see two of my favorite politicans gently groveling for financial support, but I suppose that is what politics on the national level is all about and that there is no escapging such degrading scenes. So this is how it works, I thought: high priced, low keyed schmoozing to gain `access’ to candidates, delegates, etc. Although I enjoyed meeting Charlie Ergen (briefly – I couldn’t think of anything to lobby him for) I found the gathering pretty boring , and would have left after about a half hour, but the friends with whom I came seemed to be enjoying themselves with food, spirits and enjoying the music. In many ways, despite all this, Echo Star's reception for the Black Congressional Caucus was a rather tame example of such events. `Little’ parties like this were taking place all over Denver this week, some hosted by corporations and their lobbyists, others by the politicans themselves. Nancy Pelosi held a major bash at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Norm Brownstein and Steve Farber, lobbyists and political players extroardinaire rented to modern art museum for a like event. This should come as no surprise. It was corporate lobbyists in large measure that had, despite laws to the contrary, almost entirely funded the Democratic National Convention, a tradition developed by the Clinton's themselves to counter Republican corporate monetary contributions. `In restaurants and hotels, the Financial Times (August 30, 2008) wrote, law makers mingled with lobbyists and other donors just as they do in Washington’. Among the other parties were JP Morgan’s `salute to women governors’, the Recording Industry Association’s concert featuring Kanye West. The California delegation was invited to a party hosted by ATT on Monday. The delegates were `greeted with goodies’ but the outside of the bags contained disclaimers `We [ATT] have been advised by counsel that we may not offer complimentary gift bags to public officials’ as if that somehow legitimized the gift giving. Billy Tauzin, chief executive of the pharmaceutical lobby group PhRMA and scroundrel-extraordinaire of American politics, hosted a brunch, Tauzin, a Cajun born former US Congressman from Louisiana , retired from the US House of Representatives in 2005. Ten years prior, at sensing the winds of change, and claiming there was no place in the Democratic Party for `a moderate’ Democrat, he switched and became a Republican. It was reported that upon his retirement, the PhRMA offered Tauzin more than $2.5 million per year for his services, outbidding the Motion Picture Association of America, which had offered Tauzin $1 million to lobby for it.[1] (to be continued) ______________________________________________________________ August 18, 2008 No Georgian Kekkonens In Sight (3) http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wallerstein170808.html Geopolitical Chess: by Immanuel Wallerstein The world has been witness this month to a mini-war in the Caucasus,
and the From 1945 to 1989, the principal chess game was that between the United
States for the full text click here... _______________________________________________ August 14, 2008 No Georgian Kekkonens In Sight (2) McCain's Dose of Political Viagra: A New Cold War With Russia The situation between Russia and Georgia has a long complex history, one that exploded once again in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As in such situations, many questions remain concerning just how and why this mini-war started and what has been the US role in these events. For example... Most of the Civilian Casualties Killed by Georgian Militias Today, one of Denver's local papers shows a front page photo of Georgian civilians running from Russian tanks. It will evoke a justified wave of sympathy for the innocent Georgian civilians caught up in the fighting. But no photos or articles about those South Ossetian civilians massacred by the invading Georgian military are there to balance them out. Nor will there be. For the public relations campaign to be successful, all the blame - or the overwhelming amount of it - for crisis must be placed on Russia. Sympathy is being whipped up for the Georgians, the `little nation’ once again oppressed by its big neighbor with its wacky neo-con president president who provoked the crisis in the first place being cast as Georgia's `David' facing the Russian Goliath. Please. John McCain is on the attack, calling the Russian incurision into Georgia as the most significant crisis since the end of the Cold War and CNN shamelessly gives Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili full use of its airwaves to give his spin to events. No Abkhazian, South Ossetian or Russian will get similar access - if any at all. So once again we're been set up, softened up, manipulated by a media that doesn't exactly lie, but only gives a loaded version of the stiatuon. . Little is made of the fact that it is the Georgians that initiated military actions and that the overwhelming number of the 2000 civilian casualties were not caused by Russian air bombing but by out of control Georgian militias attacking South Ossetia. Nor do we hear anything - or hardly anything from the Abkhazians and South Ossetians who see, not Russia, but Georgia as the aggressor. Already, virtually no comment explanation that Russians give are viewed with any credibility. Sergie Lavrov might as well be Ahmadinejad talking. It is especially touching to to note how George Bush and John McCain who have trampled and re-invented international law defending the administration's actions in Iraq, are now imploring the Russians to respect it and the UN Security Council in Georgia. It will be interesting to learn - and some day we will perhaps - if these militia’s had US commanders or advisors (either from the U.S. military itself or from private militias like Blackwater) and what, if any role, the many Israeli military advisors played in the Georgian offensive. US Claims of Military Support Hollow Concerning the war on the ground - in a few short days, the Russian Army and Air Force made mincemeat of the US-Israeli trained Georgian army. It is not unlike what happened to all those US, Israeli, Saudi, and Egyptian trained militias in Lebanon that Hezbollah wiped out in a matter of hours. Overnight, Georgian military preparedness collapsed as half the army deserted by foot back into Georgia. Not a pretty site. While I have no doubt that Russian aerial bombing has caused civilian casualties, even mainstream American media admits that the main focus of the Russian military offensive was Georgia’s military structures. Not much left of them now. And the Russian military successes in Georgia showed to all of Eastern and Southern Europe just how hollow were the US claims of military support. The Bush Administration claims of standing behind Georgia have proven laughable. Yes, Bush is standing behind Georgia, some 6,000 miles behind it. Having once again encouraged (in one way or another) a Middle Eastern ally into action and then leave them dangling by their tootsies so to speak (the Kurds in Iraq many times, the Iraqi Shi’ites, more recently US allies - those little half-assed right-wing miliitias in Lebanon expecting US help), now the Bush Administration launches a global propaganda campaign to cover up its own failures. And it is a loud one. John McCain's New Leae On Life: Reshaping the fear factor But all this has given John McCain a new lease on life . McCain has found himself in a tizzy as the American electorate seems more interested in ending wars that getting into new ones. The old lines, that we are winning the war in Iraq, that Ahmadinejad is someone akin to Genghis Khan, just weren’t striking home. For all the propaganda the American people are fed, they still are against the war in Iraq and opposed to the US taking military action against Iran. The problem is that McCain is getting no traction for his pro-Iraq-war-bomb-Iran stance. He has not been able to play the fear factor - so critical to Bush’s two presidential bids - successfully. For McCain, whose militarist streak matches that of Bush, this is serious indeed. But now perhaps McCain has found his portion of political viagra by taking the old Soviet threat out of the closet, dusting it off and setting it in motion once again. Certainly, the evolving global campaign against Russia is already reminiscent of Cold War anti-Soviet campaigns of past eras. Unable to whip up support for John McCain’s Iraq or Iran policies - which boil down to Cheney’s interpretation of eternal war in the Middle East - the Republicans, looking for a springboard to get McCain’s flagging presidential bid off the ground, have shifted gears. The Georgian-Russian crisis over Abkhazia and South Ossetia thus provides McCain with a golden opportunity. Why not resurrect the old anti-Soviet threat - slightly revised and polished up for modern audiences? Behind the overblown - and not credible - US support for Georgia - is the shadow of a US-Russian military confrontation that brings with it the threat of escalation to nuclear war. So once again the United States is willing to play high stakes poker with the fate of the earth and as it has done so often on the past, transform U.S. supported military aggression into `victimhood’. So let the sabre rattling begin. And it has begun. News that the Russians brought SS-21 missile launchers with them into
S. Ossetia to counter any US conventional air bombings suggest a very
serious Russian response. It seems Saakashvili is doing what he can to
draw the United States into the military aspect of the confrontation.
And now the queen of contemporary diplomatic clowns, our own Secretary of State and Chevron board of directors member, Condoleeza Rice, who has supported every diplomatic twist in Bush’s policies for eight years in her different capacities will see what poisonous magic she can sew. And that is what is happening with a willing media once again, going out of its way to pitch in. A major political campaign, another American jihad, is in the making, this time targeting Russia. The idelogical groundwork for war is once again being laid. But this time , Bush is toying with a more formidable adversary. Russia is not Grenada. Images of Stalin and Hitler have already appeared, talk of sanctions, threats to kick Russia out of the Group of Eight, etc. Pathetic attempts to compare Georgia with Afghanistan will follow. John Hagee and the messianic lobby are are getting really excited, and AIPAC is already upset that all this could prevent the United States from attacking Iran. McCain's goal is to put pressure on Obama to to join in the frenzy, and in so doing, to compromise the Democrat's presidential bid. It just might work. ______________________________________________ August 12, 2008 No Georgian Kekkonens In Sight `Poor Georgia, So Far From God, So Close To Russia?’ Finland is far afield from Georgia (the country with Tblisi as capitol, not the state where Atlanta and Savannah reside). But in the sense that it has had to deal with a powerful Russian neighbor, Helsinki - along with all of Russia’s smaller neighbors - shares a common dilemma: how to survive in the shadow of its more powerful and oft overbearing neighbor. Such dilemmas face many nations in different parts of the world. Many Caribbean and Central American countries face a similar predicament visa their neighbor to the north. And thus the wonderful quote by 19th century Mexican president Juarez that goes `Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States’. I wonder if there is a Georgian equivalent concerning Russia? And if not, there should be. The problem that Georgia (or Finland or Estonia or Poland) face with
Russia is not new: how to manage to maintain their independence in the
shadow of `the giant’. The way it has often been done is to pit
another giant against the Russian one - be it the UK, Germany or since
World War II, the USA. During World War II, Finland, while not a fascist
country at the time, first bet on Germany - Nazi Germany that is - to
counter a genuine Soviet threat to their independence. Although the Finns
don’t particularly like talking about it, even 65 years later, they
were allied with the Nazis and participated with them in the siege of
Leningrad that left a million and a half Russians dead of cold and starvation.
Understanding that their fate was in the balance - the Finnish leadership made a hasty but historic shift in policy. A delegation went to Moscow, it ate crow in front of Stalin himself who demanded many things, among them Finnish territory, reparations, post war Soviet military bases and the Finnish commitment to expel the Nazis from Finland north of the Arctic Circle. If you think that Finland got a raw deal, think again. Compare its fate with its neighbors across the Baltic - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania -. Finland came out of World War II an independent country and one that greatly benefitted both politically and economically from its pledge of neutrality in the cold war. Learning From Finland The lesson - and the political strategy that ensued - was simple: that while remaining a western capitalist country Finland would not enter into any military or security alliances that could be considered anti-Soviet, that the country would not be used as a launching pad for anti-Soviet economic and political subversion. The architects of this policy were two politically conservative to-centrist Finns, Juho Kusti Paasakivi and Urho Kekkonen and their approach to the Cold War of active neutrality was referred to as the Paasakivi-Kekkonen line. It worked to an extraordinary degree. From what I can tell, the line - now geared to Russia in the wake of the collapse of the USSR and Soviet communism - more or less continues. It has been nothing short of the political key to Finland’s security and economic success. Although a virtual unknown here in the United States, when Kekkonen died in December of 1986, by then already mentally decimated by Alzheimers’ or something akin to it, there was hardly a Finnish household - left, right or center - where the tears didn’t flow. And for good reason. An original political genius, he and Paasakivi before him had steered his country through some of the roughest political waters imaginable. And the result, with its security situation stabilized, Finland - where my family and I lived for nearly five years in the late 1980s - made impressive progress on the economic, political and human levels. `A Parasite Country Look for A New Host Country To Bleed' It seems that Georgia could learn a great deal from Finland’s example, but apparently it has not. In the past decade it has tied its fate economically and militarily to the United States - and its key Middle Eastern partner, Israel. A well connected friend of mine put Georgia's post Soviet dilemma rather tartly referring to Russia's southern neighbor in the Caucuses as `a parasite nation looking for a new host country to bleed'. With yet another one of these Harvard educated neoliberal-pickled presidents in Mikheil Saakashvili there should be no great surprise that Georgia cannot run fast enough into Bush's embrace Could it have been that Georgia was encouraged in this recent military adventure - there is no question that it is Georgia that started the fighting - by the United States? (for credible reinforcement of this hypothesis, click here) Not clear at this point although the facts are leaning in that direction. It is possible that Bush, and particularly Cheney, unable to attack Iran, were looking to provoke a war elsewhere in the region to strengthen McCain's chances of winning the presidency? But our Vice President, with his stellar record on human rights and peace making wouldn't do such a thing, would he? Keep in mind that the statements from his office as the war started were easily the most bellicose coming out of Washington, as if he wanted to see the war expanded behind its lilmited nature. What is certain is that strong military ties between Tblisi, Washington and Tel Aviv exist. What would Washington get out of encouraging such a provocation? One thing, the Bush Administration could gauge just how far Russia could be pushed before it responded militarily and if it responded, to what extent. Georgia takes all the risks, the US and Israel gain strategic insights and lose little. (Actually the US did lose political ground as result of this spat). A slight hint of the US role has already surfaced - Russian criticism of U.S. transport planes moving Georgian troops from Iraq to Tblisi to participate in the fighting. In so doing the U.S. was not exactly playing a neutral role. There is other information for anyone serious enough to check it out. Officially, on the military front, according to the Pentagon there are 127 U.S. military `consultants’ training the Georgian army, among them about 35 who are civilian `Blackwater’ type contractors. According to Shagra Elam `in addition to the trainers, 1000 (US) soldiers from Vicenza, the Italy-based Southern European Task Force along with US Marine reservists from the 25th Marine Battalion out of Ohio and elements of the Georgia National Guard recently participated in what was called `Immediate Response 2008' near Tblisi. `Operation Immediate Response’ was held from July 15-30 with U.S personnel training about 600 troops at a former Soviet base. The goal of this operation was allegedly teaching combat skills for Georgian missions in Iraq. Then there are hundreds of Israeli military advisors in the country as well. Again, according to Shraga, an Israeli website known for its publication of conspiracy theories, DebkaFile, believes that over 1000 Israelis were involved in the Georgian military action which provoked the pronounced Russian response. As Shraga notes `this conclusion [that Israel was intimately involved in the Georgian military action] sounds plausible. Other sources point to similar links between the United States and Israel militaries and the current Georgian administration. Furthermore keep in mind that in the age of George Bush II that the US military (and intelligence agencies) often acts without the knowledge or premission of the State Department. At US Bidding (?) Georgia Jabs, Russia Strikes Back Harder Although it appears that the fighting between Russian and Georgian troops over South Ossetia and Abkhazia has died down after 4-5 days, it was not before several thousand people lost their lives, and a number of Georgian cities and towns were bombed from the air by Russian jets, causing a national and human panic. An email from a former Georgian student to friends at the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies where I teach, gives a glimpse of the horror of war of a small country like Georgia having to stand up to its more powerful neighbor and often colonizer. "They are putting bases mainly at Georgian military and police stations. Streets of captured towns (especially in conflict zones) are full with Russian tanks. At this moment they are not attacking population directly. Though the clashes and air bombing of previous days caused significant civilian and well as military casualties. The numbers are difficult to verify so far. " "What can I say… it is terrible! No one would imagine Russia going so far in its aggressive politics on Caucasus. International community’s incapability to stop Russian aggression is just astonishing and frustrating. It is just blatant invasion in sovereign country far from any logic and morale. We’ve suffered the same from Russians already in 1921 and after collapse of USSR in 90ies. This has been a second war in my country affecting me personally as some of you know (I'm an international displaced person from from Abkhazia A/R). I’m just feeling frustration and anger and can’t help it.” Washington and Tel Aviv Should Have Known Better... While there is some truth to the picture painted above, unfortunately, there is much left out as well. The biggest gap in the scenario is - once again - the U.S. media’s failure to point out that Russian troops entered Southern Ossetia in response to a major Georgian military invasion of the region. Hoping to use the Peking Olympics as a diversion of the world’s attention, Georgian President Saakashvili ordered a major offensive to reclaim Southern Ossetia, which has been since 1992 in a special situation in which formal Georgian sovereignty is acknowledged but with Russian military forces in place as peace keepers. Saakashvili ordered nothing short of a full scale invasion of the region and Georgian military marched on the S. Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. There were reports of outright massacres of Ossetians by the Georgian forces with the number of civilian dead exceeding 2000 by some reports. The impression the media gives is that these are mostly Russians living in S. Ossetia. In fact there are very few Russians living in this area, most of the victims being of Ossetian (it is a separate ethnic group with its own history) ethnic origin. The Russians intervened - certainly for strategic reasons - but also to stop this bloodbath. Even the Financial Times (8/12, 8/13, 2008) admits that this description of the evolution of events is accurate (although the number of civilian victims remains unclear). So it wasn’t the Russians slaughtering Georgians that precipitated the crisis but the US-Israeli trained Georgian military that provoked the violence and engaged in what amounts to wholesale massacres. Not that any of what follows can justify the Russian military offensive given Russian history as a colonial power in the region, but it is simply not accurate that Georgia was an innocent victim in all this. At the time of the Russian offensive, Georgian troops had initiated series of military forays into South Ossetia and Abkhazia - both formally a part of Georgia, but both with sizable Russian populations with secessionist movements. Further, given the sizeable US (and Israeli) military missions in Georgia, it is highly unlikely that the attempted Georgian military offensive to which the Russians responded (even the Financial Times admits the Russians were provoked) which such force and brutality undertook these actions without the knowledge and approval of both Washington and Tel Aviv. It is not only unlikely but virtually impossible that the United States and Israel were not involved in the Georgian military offensive against Russian positions in South Ossetia. Such things - taking military action against Russia - simply do not happen `by themselves’. It does not ring true that a country as small and fragile as Georgia would take such dramatic military action without first `consulting’ and `getting permission'. What Bush and Olmert did not anticipate was the powerful Russian military response. But they should have. It has been quite clear for some time now that the Georgian government of Mikheil Saakashvili has been moving as far away from Russia and as close to the United States as possible. Georgia has opened itself up to a significant US military and economic penetration that sooner or later was bound to provoke a strong Russian reaction. In a way, Georgia finds itself in the same situation as many other Russian neighbors - fearing Russian territorial desires and looking for some kind of international lever that might be used to counter Russian influence. The tensions between Russia and Georgia are also geo-political in nature involving the United States which has set up a ring of military bases around Russia, not unlike that which existed during the Cold War, except now the bases are even closer to the Russian heartland than during the Soviet era. To no avail, Russia has been warning Europe and the United States for some time, that the Western military perimeter surrounding Russia had been pushed to the limit. NATO Goes Over The Edge The turning point for the Russians appears to have been the April, 2008
NATO meeting where it was decided that sooner or later, Georgia would
be let into the US dominated Cold War dinosaur. To heap on the insults, now the United States is planning to put anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, arguing unconvincingly that it is to defend those countries from a possible Iranian attack. Imagine! The Russians do not feel any safer having US missiles closer to their borders. The U.S. insists - but no one in the region believes - that the missiles are not targeting Russia. The US efforts to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Turkey, though Georgia bypassing Russian territory only added to Russia suspicions. As a number of commentators suggest, the Russian military offensive was essentially a warning shot not only to Georgia but also to the Ukraine who would also like to join the alliance. The promise of Georgian NATO member comes late in the game as many other Eastern European countries have joined the alliance. Russia has looked nervously on as a slew of its former allies or - or member nations of the now defunct USSR - have joined NATO, among them Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Russian Claims, Russian Gains Russian claims that its show of force in Georgia was necessary to restore order and defend Ossetian locals are hard to take serious as are the assertions that the military offensive was essentially a humanitarian mission aimed at preventing ethnic cleansing (of ethnic Russians) and even `genocide’. Please. It rings as hollow as Bush talking about invading Iraq to install democracy. What is at play instead is the battle of the two doctrines pushing against each other like tectonic plates - the Brezhnev Doctrine as it was called, in which first the USSR and now Russia give themselves the right to intervene militarily in countries beyond their borders when they see their interests threatened, and the Carter-Reagan-Bush Doctrines which give the United States the right to declare any piece of property anywhere in the world as a strategic asset that the US has the right to defend by pre-emptive war. While I don’t think that World War III will start over the crisis in Georgia - this conflict, combined with usual jingoistic stupidities coming out of Washington both from Cheney and McCain - raise the specter of a much larger confrontation. It’s one thing to `bring on Al Qaeda’ quite another to challenge the Russians - in their own back yard so to speak - in the same reckless manner. My initial sense is that Russia soundly won this round - at the price
of a lot of innocent lives. It’s military penetration was short
and devastating, setting in motion a whole series of political consequences
all of which are not entirely clear but which include the following: The pre-emptive bobsy twins can no longer make their military plans
in the Middle East region with impunity. Russia has - in its own cruel
way - made it clear that it too is a player. ._____________________________________________________________________ August 3, 2008 Death of Pat Mahoney, long time Catholic Humanist, Long Distance Runner for Peace and Justice It has always been interesting to me to see how different people process their religious upbringing. It can serve an excuse for supporting the status quo - as it seems to be with something of a vengeance for the current Denver Archbishop Chaput, who is arguably the most reactionary Catholic leader in this state's history and an anachronism - if not an insult - to Catholicism's deeper humanistic traditions. Contrast him with Sister Pat Mahoney, long time a Denver social justice activist who gave her life to working particularly with drug addicts but also was an integral part of the city's peace movement during the long years she blessed us with her presence in Colorado. Mahoney died recently i | ||||||