Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Saturday, June 15, 2013
F**k 'Em All!
So saith my soulmate, upon hearing that we might intervene militarily, again, on one side of an ancient Muslim sectarian dispute.
The Syrian civil war is increasingly a war between Shia, including Alawites, and the Sunni majority. The Sunni powers, the Saudis and the Emirates, are supporting the rebels, including al Qaeda affiliates; the Shiite powers, Iran and Hezbollah, and behind them, Russia, are supporting Assad's Alawite-dominated government.
So, since Russia is heavily arming Syria and Hezbollah, shouldn't the US jump in to support the rebels, along with its long-time 'democratic friends,' the Sunni-dominated monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf? Shiite-controlled Iraq, on which the US squandered almost a trillion dollars, is permitting passage of Russian and Iranian weaponry to Assad and Hezbollah.
So, the US should do it again, in Syria, not just offer small arms? It should go in with massive equipment and training for the rebels, or more, even though prominent numbers of the rebels claim sympathy with, or allegiance to, al Qaeda?
The US helped create al Qaeda, back when Americans were seeking allies to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The US supported and trained Osama bin Laden. Don't Americans ever learn? The US's second adventure in Afghanistan turned out so well that a majority of the US House of Representatives (including conservative Republicans) just demanded the US leave Afghanistan by the end of 2013!
Not only has hot-head McCain insisted America intervene in Syria, on the rebel side, but he was publicly seconded by Bill Clinton, who warned Obama would be a "wuss," if he didn't act forcefully on Syria.
It's true the Syrian rebellion started out as a peaceful, secular protest demanding democracy, and the Assad regime attempted violent suppression. Assad had no compunction attacking Syrian civilians with his military: in 1982, his father, Hafez, murdered at least 10,000 Syrians in Hama, alone. But this time, Sunnis rallied and the protest turned into a rebellion, fueled by money and arms from the Sunni Persian Gulf oil monarchies. Hence, Syrians now fight both civil war and sectarian war.
The US will support the Sunni side, along with al Qaeda, why?
Sunni and Shia have been battling since 661 CE (1,352 years), over who should succeed the Prophet. Why should the US have anything to do with either? Especially, why, since it has already failed twice in its Mideast interventions--Iraq and Afghanistan--and the outcome of its third, Libya, is still uncertain.
The US loses, if it intervenes. As horrendous as the carnage in Syria, the US would make it worse. But Empire is so seductive, especially to the Defense industry. Americans could be bankrupted as the Romans were, but unlike Huns, or Germanic barbarians, US 'enemies' do not threaten America's existence, only each others'.
Let them kill each other until they're exhausted--they will anyway. Or see reason. Let the UN pick up the pieces.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Who Holds the Power?
Political conventions are mostly to activate the base these days, since the selection of the nominee has taken place long before. That's when Romney bought the primaries, through his superior funding, the support of Rove's Crossroads GPS and Wall Street.
Of course, Obama, as incumbent didn't have to fight contested primaries; the nominee had been selected by his previous election, although there was some opposition and lack of interest, especially among activists
If you look at the two conventions as venues to gin up the activists, the Democrats were far more effective. Obama was by far a better speaker than Romney, and the GOP has no one like Bill Clinton, who gave one of the best speeches of his life. The Democratic convention was much more integrated and the many other speakers created a meaningful whole, climaxing with Obama's speech.
It probably wasn't his best, but it was inspirational for anyone listening, by the climax, though it started out slowly.
Former supporters who had cooled to the President, said in the convention's aftermath, "He's doing the best he can, maybe the best anyone can--and I'm going to give money, and/or I'm going to do something for his campaign."
I hope many saw parts, at least, of the two conventions; apparently, not that many did. From my vantage point (admittedly biased towards Democrats, but wary of its Wall Street wing), they did seem to differ, the way Bill Clinton encapsulated it: the Republicans stressed on-your-own-individualism, while Democrats demonstrated, as well as advocated, for a society in which everyone-is-in-it-together. The second model seemed to work for Democrats. Republican stars hardly gave a nod to Romney in their speeches.
Another expression of this difference was the GOP's insistence that the wealthy already paid too much, and should get tax cuts, while Democrats said they should pay their fair share, meaning higher tax rates, above the top rate of 35% as of now, at least back to Clinton's 39.6% (the top rate was 91% under Republican President Eisenhower). The wealthy are already paying the lowest rate since 1931 (only the 20's had a lower rate--25%) and we know where that led.
Some surprises from the conventions: Democrats came across celebrating the military and national security (the execution of Osama bin Laden), Obamacare, the auto bailout, as well as the partial recovery from the economy's depths in 2009, after Obama's inauguration.
Republicans totally missed any military celebration, entertained warnings from neo-cons that Americans should take on Syria, Iran--or threats anywhere--and complained that Obama had failed abroad, and at home with the recovery.
Neither party focused on financial sector abuses, or impunity, indicating that both are heavily beholden to Wall Street--AG Holder just dropped all suits against banks and banksters.
Even if Obama and Democrats win, the selfish class, our Roman Senators, firmly hold the reins, even though it's clear: most of them would prefer Romney. He's one of their own.
Of course, Obama, as incumbent didn't have to fight contested primaries; the nominee had been selected by his previous election, although there was some opposition and lack of interest, especially among activists
If you look at the two conventions as venues to gin up the activists, the Democrats were far more effective. Obama was by far a better speaker than Romney, and the GOP has no one like Bill Clinton, who gave one of the best speeches of his life. The Democratic convention was much more integrated and the many other speakers created a meaningful whole, climaxing with Obama's speech.
It probably wasn't his best, but it was inspirational for anyone listening, by the climax, though it started out slowly.
Former supporters who had cooled to the President, said in the convention's aftermath, "He's doing the best he can, maybe the best anyone can--and I'm going to give money, and/or I'm going to do something for his campaign."
I hope many saw parts, at least, of the two conventions; apparently, not that many did. From my vantage point (admittedly biased towards Democrats, but wary of its Wall Street wing), they did seem to differ, the way Bill Clinton encapsulated it: the Republicans stressed on-your-own-individualism, while Democrats demonstrated, as well as advocated, for a society in which everyone-is-in-it-together. The second model seemed to work for Democrats. Republican stars hardly gave a nod to Romney in their speeches.
Another expression of this difference was the GOP's insistence that the wealthy already paid too much, and should get tax cuts, while Democrats said they should pay their fair share, meaning higher tax rates, above the top rate of 35% as of now, at least back to Clinton's 39.6% (the top rate was 91% under Republican President Eisenhower). The wealthy are already paying the lowest rate since 1931 (only the 20's had a lower rate--25%) and we know where that led.
Some surprises from the conventions: Democrats came across celebrating the military and national security (the execution of Osama bin Laden), Obamacare, the auto bailout, as well as the partial recovery from the economy's depths in 2009, after Obama's inauguration.
Republicans totally missed any military celebration, entertained warnings from neo-cons that Americans should take on Syria, Iran--or threats anywhere--and complained that Obama had failed abroad, and at home with the recovery.
Neither party focused on financial sector abuses, or impunity, indicating that both are heavily beholden to Wall Street--AG Holder just dropped all suits against banks and banksters.
Even if Obama and Democrats win, the selfish class, our Roman Senators, firmly hold the reins, even though it's clear: most of them would prefer Romney. He's one of their own.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Timorous Democrats
Republicans appear, with the help of Cato, Fox "News" and Limbaugh, to have created a whole new (fictional) world, one in which austerity and government lay offs create jobs, in which governments never create jobs, but "job creators" like Willard Romney do. It's an ideological system dependent on economic theories already proved more effective at amassing deficits, not jobs: the Laffer Curve and supply side fiscal policy. They state that taxes should be cut (even more) on the wealthy, and raised for everyone else, to stimulate the "job creators" already flush with cash, while gutting government services to those in need--to get them back to work!
Why are Democrats so timorous in response? They're terrified of the money (and media) against them, so they try to compromise just enough to get money on their side, to survive. That strategy was best embodied in Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council, a temporarily successful attempt to drive the Democratic Party to the center. It was Bill's genius to recognize that he could use some of the moneyed to gain support for a party that had a broader appeal, but was short on cash. Unfortunately, Wall Street was his main source of funds. Obama, too. That means no populist response, except rhetorically, to the bank and housing collapse and timid attempts to alleviate the worst effects. Obama may actually believe what he's saying, but he knows, or has learned, that nothing can be done, unless those who control the purse allow it.
Citizens United made the moneyed even more powerful, those I call Roman Senators here; they can now use their capital to buy the kind of government they want, which is why there will be piles of corporate money on both sides of the aisle.
In order to counter the money, only the largest and best-managed mass organizations could possibly have an impact. But the only ones on the progressive side not beholden to moneyed interests are labor unions. Before Reagan, they were powerful, although often crippled by graft and sclerosis. Since Reagan, they've been increasingly emasculated. The Scott Walkers in the states have been trying to destroy the only part of American unions that still had much clout: the public employee unions.
Paradoxically, such political abuse may have sparked popular outrage: the protests and recall election drives in Wisconsin, the repeal of Kasich's anti-union law, and finally, the Occupy movement.
The Occupiers may have had some effect on Obama's rhetoric, and may tip some Congressional races. In my district (Senator Gillibrand's former district), a dedicated progressive/Occupy sympathizer, Joel Tyner, is energetically campaigning to run against our Tea Party Congressman. He has enthusiasm, but neither money, nor organization (Gillibrand had both). Joel's problems illustrate how difficult it is to overcome elites bent on imperial overreach.
Move to Amend would repeal Citizens United; that would be only a first step to getting money out of politics.
Why are Democrats so timorous in response? They're terrified of the money (and media) against them, so they try to compromise just enough to get money on their side, to survive. That strategy was best embodied in Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council, a temporarily successful attempt to drive the Democratic Party to the center. It was Bill's genius to recognize that he could use some of the moneyed to gain support for a party that had a broader appeal, but was short on cash. Unfortunately, Wall Street was his main source of funds. Obama, too. That means no populist response, except rhetorically, to the bank and housing collapse and timid attempts to alleviate the worst effects. Obama may actually believe what he's saying, but he knows, or has learned, that nothing can be done, unless those who control the purse allow it.
Citizens United made the moneyed even more powerful, those I call Roman Senators here; they can now use their capital to buy the kind of government they want, which is why there will be piles of corporate money on both sides of the aisle.
In order to counter the money, only the largest and best-managed mass organizations could possibly have an impact. But the only ones on the progressive side not beholden to moneyed interests are labor unions. Before Reagan, they were powerful, although often crippled by graft and sclerosis. Since Reagan, they've been increasingly emasculated. The Scott Walkers in the states have been trying to destroy the only part of American unions that still had much clout: the public employee unions.
Paradoxically, such political abuse may have sparked popular outrage: the protests and recall election drives in Wisconsin, the repeal of Kasich's anti-union law, and finally, the Occupy movement.
The Occupiers may have had some effect on Obama's rhetoric, and may tip some Congressional races. In my district (Senator Gillibrand's former district), a dedicated progressive/Occupy sympathizer, Joel Tyner, is energetically campaigning to run against our Tea Party Congressman. He has enthusiasm, but neither money, nor organization (Gillibrand had both). Joel's problems illustrate how difficult it is to overcome elites bent on imperial overreach.
Move to Amend would repeal Citizens United; that would be only a first step to getting money out of politics.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Romney, Wall Street Occupation and Obama
After three weeks of protests, or "occupation," the Wall Street movement (for want of a better term) has begun to pick up enough momentum that even Mitt Romney noticed: he griped it was "class warfare."
In Egypt, the demonstrations at Tahrir Square met with some police violence, just like the Wall Street protests, but they were largely peaceful and prevailed in the end. In Bahrain, the King called in the Saudi army to suppress the protesters. One hopes our military is more like the Egyptian than the Saudi; it's largely American, at least.
In some ways, the Wall Street grievances are not comparable to those of the Middle East. There, all the governments were openly corrupt dictatorships. The elite that has taken power in the US has used more subtlety.
First of all, there really was a counter-revolutionary coup, but in stages. It was first partly successful with Reagan, and the selfish class steadily gained power even with Clinton. The rate of takeover accelerated with the Supreme Court coup that put Bush II into the White House, and has hardly been retarded by Obama. Obama's capitulation to the corporate position on the environment (against science and his own EPA) and at least temporarily on taxes is symptomatic: the Obama "revolution" hasn't happened yet.
A friend of mine, more centrist than I am, was outraged when I remarked I wasn't going to donate or work for the Obama campaign the way I did in 2008. Then, I not only gave money, many times, I also volunteered to work in the campaign out of Poughkeepsie, NY and also in Pennsylvania. I'll still vote for him, probably, if I vote, unless there really is the possibility that a more liberal/anti-war, pro-New Deal third party could emerge. But, and this is a warning to others similarly inclined, the one time I did vote for a third party candidate, because I was disgusted with the Democrat, was the Reagan election against incumbent, Jimmy Carter.
Either Obama is much less progressive than he made himself out to be, or he was overawed by "the experts," professionals (both civilian and military), and by the selfish class elites. Obama is very bright, but he naturally seeks out compromise, even when the other side was considerably weaker (before 2010) and intransigent. To seek compromise under such conditions only ensures that radical conservative positions tend to become even more radical.
FDR's advantage was that he was Old Money, and couldn't care less if members of his class hated him. Obama is an arriviste; he's too impressed/overawed by the Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithners of this world.
That's why the Wall Street protests are on target, and why Mitt Romney's remark is an indication they are beginning to hit home. Maybe Obama will finally get it.
We still have a chance to escape the fate of Fifth Century Rome, but Obama needs to turn into another Truman, not another Carter.
In Egypt, the demonstrations at Tahrir Square met with some police violence, just like the Wall Street protests, but they were largely peaceful and prevailed in the end. In Bahrain, the King called in the Saudi army to suppress the protesters. One hopes our military is more like the Egyptian than the Saudi; it's largely American, at least.
In some ways, the Wall Street grievances are not comparable to those of the Middle East. There, all the governments were openly corrupt dictatorships. The elite that has taken power in the US has used more subtlety.
First of all, there really was a counter-revolutionary coup, but in stages. It was first partly successful with Reagan, and the selfish class steadily gained power even with Clinton. The rate of takeover accelerated with the Supreme Court coup that put Bush II into the White House, and has hardly been retarded by Obama. Obama's capitulation to the corporate position on the environment (against science and his own EPA) and at least temporarily on taxes is symptomatic: the Obama "revolution" hasn't happened yet.
A friend of mine, more centrist than I am, was outraged when I remarked I wasn't going to donate or work for the Obama campaign the way I did in 2008. Then, I not only gave money, many times, I also volunteered to work in the campaign out of Poughkeepsie, NY and also in Pennsylvania. I'll still vote for him, probably, if I vote, unless there really is the possibility that a more liberal/anti-war, pro-New Deal third party could emerge. But, and this is a warning to others similarly inclined, the one time I did vote for a third party candidate, because I was disgusted with the Democrat, was the Reagan election against incumbent, Jimmy Carter.
Either Obama is much less progressive than he made himself out to be, or he was overawed by "the experts," professionals (both civilian and military), and by the selfish class elites. Obama is very bright, but he naturally seeks out compromise, even when the other side was considerably weaker (before 2010) and intransigent. To seek compromise under such conditions only ensures that radical conservative positions tend to become even more radical.
FDR's advantage was that he was Old Money, and couldn't care less if members of his class hated him. Obama is an arriviste; he's too impressed/overawed by the Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithners of this world.
That's why the Wall Street protests are on target, and why Mitt Romney's remark is an indication they are beginning to hit home. Maybe Obama will finally get it.
We still have a chance to escape the fate of Fifth Century Rome, but Obama needs to turn into another Truman, not another Carter.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Obama the Cowardly Lion
I voted for Kennedy, and LBJ, with diminishing hope for Carter, and with a certain detachment for Bill. But with Barack Obama, I confess I was won over, as I had been for JFK back in early 1960.
Kennedy was far from perfect, but Obama isn't just a disappointment; he isn't just a failing President the way Carter was, he's failing the country, and it's probably because of who he is. Drew Westen's essay in the NYT is damning, with faint praise. Clearly, Westen is an admirer of the New Deal (so am I), but he sees Obama as someone who doesn't really know who he is; it changes with each person he works with; and he doesn't know how to deal with a bully.
Obama's pacific nature would have been well-suited to the situation Bush W faced in 2001. The outcome would have been very different, as it probably would if the Supremes had allowed Gore to be elected.
Westen pointed out that Obama's stories never include a real villain; anything bad is rather abstract, or in passive mode. And, he doesn't stand up to a bully, like McConnell, or Boehner; he wants to appease.
My wife, the inestimable Elizabeth Cunningham, told me long ago, "He's just like me! He wants to placate so the unpleasantness will go away. I know how to stand up to a bully, though; he doesn't."
But he also doesn't know if he's for progressive politics, although that's where he started, or if he really thinks more like Reagan. He may have been corrupted, in the moral sense, or he's just more of a chameleon than anyone knew: conservative when Republicans make everyone seem to be to his right--not a comfortable place to be--progressive when among Democrats, but never far out left.
That's why "centrism" is like a religion in the Obama White House: along with Change We Can Believe In, Obama's other great theme in the election was Unity. After health care, it's been little change, but too much effort for achieving unity when none is possible, except through a dead-pan or ambiguous surrender.
It's true that S&P blamed the GOP's obstructionism in their downgrade missive, but they're seeing only half of the picture; the other half has Obama cringing before GOP leaders. Obama enables bullies. The bullies are also incredibly destructive. They brought the US over the brink of fiscal credibility, and it's probably like the title of my long ago discarded first novel: When Wrong Ways Prevail.
The novel wasn't about the Roman Empire; it took place in modern India, and the wrong ways were personal, not economic or political. However, my non-fiction book, the Selfish Class, available onsite, details 21st Century parallels with the late Roman Empire's takeover by the wealthy and the military.
That's what seems to be happening here, now: tragically, even with Obama.
My novel, Attila, also onsite, takes place only decades before Rome's fall.
Kennedy was far from perfect, but Obama isn't just a disappointment; he isn't just a failing President the way Carter was, he's failing the country, and it's probably because of who he is. Drew Westen's essay in the NYT is damning, with faint praise. Clearly, Westen is an admirer of the New Deal (so am I), but he sees Obama as someone who doesn't really know who he is; it changes with each person he works with; and he doesn't know how to deal with a bully.
Obama's pacific nature would have been well-suited to the situation Bush W faced in 2001. The outcome would have been very different, as it probably would if the Supremes had allowed Gore to be elected.
Westen pointed out that Obama's stories never include a real villain; anything bad is rather abstract, or in passive mode. And, he doesn't stand up to a bully, like McConnell, or Boehner; he wants to appease.
My wife, the inestimable Elizabeth Cunningham, told me long ago, "He's just like me! He wants to placate so the unpleasantness will go away. I know how to stand up to a bully, though; he doesn't."
But he also doesn't know if he's for progressive politics, although that's where he started, or if he really thinks more like Reagan. He may have been corrupted, in the moral sense, or he's just more of a chameleon than anyone knew: conservative when Republicans make everyone seem to be to his right--not a comfortable place to be--progressive when among Democrats, but never far out left.
That's why "centrism" is like a religion in the Obama White House: along with Change We Can Believe In, Obama's other great theme in the election was Unity. After health care, it's been little change, but too much effort for achieving unity when none is possible, except through a dead-pan or ambiguous surrender.
It's true that S&P blamed the GOP's obstructionism in their downgrade missive, but they're seeing only half of the picture; the other half has Obama cringing before GOP leaders. Obama enables bullies. The bullies are also incredibly destructive. They brought the US over the brink of fiscal credibility, and it's probably like the title of my long ago discarded first novel: When Wrong Ways Prevail.
The novel wasn't about the Roman Empire; it took place in modern India, and the wrong ways were personal, not economic or political. However, my non-fiction book, the Selfish Class, available onsite, details 21st Century parallels with the late Roman Empire's takeover by the wealthy and the military.
That's what seems to be happening here, now: tragically, even with Obama.
My novel, Attila, also onsite, takes place only decades before Rome's fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)