IF YOU LIKE TRUMP, YOU'LL LOVE BERNIE

                                                                                     



                                                                                         

         



Sanders supporters are understandably excited by his surprise victory in Michigan, but few take for granted that he will continue to build momentum for the nomination. The corporate media and the DNC seem determined as ever to continue promoting the myth that Clinton will be the inevitable Democratic candidate for president. Despite the fact that her positions are largely out of step with the Democratic mainstream, the rationalizations for voting for her remain persuasive for a large proportion of the party faithful.  Bernie will need to take advantage of every opportunity to tap into that segment of the electorate hungry for change.  While it may seem counterintuitive, Trump supporters may provide the margin he needs for victory.

The consensus opinion on the left is that Trump’s appeal is based on his racist positions on immigration and his Islamophobia, both of which attract the most extreme right wingers who disproportionately support Trump. However, James Robertson offers a persuasive argument that that is not the case. He concludes that Trump’s base is composed of a wide spectrum of conservative voters who are tired of being taken for granted by the lies of the corporate politicians who comprise the establishment of the Republican Party. His powerful argument explains why Trump continues to build support despite his wildly inconsistent views, many of which contradict conservative dogma.

If Robertson’s thesis is correct, it suggests that Sanders and his supporters have a unique opportunity to forge an alliance between left and right. With the right approach, they could unite moderate dissidents across the political spectrum around issues of common concern. While the idea will strike many as far-fetched, it has also been suggested by at least one conservative blogger who makes a strong argument for it.  In addition, as Sanders pointed out in the FOX debate, he was reelected by a nearly 3:1 margin in 2012 in the most rural state in the union. While Vermont is exceptionally liberal for a rural, largely white population, it still has a significant proportion of conservatives.

While it remains to be seen how many conservatives would be willing to register Democratic in the primaries in order to vote for Sanders over Clinton, there is no doubt this is a demographic that Sanders would want on his side in the general election. The more successful a primary effort to sway conservatives who are developing doubts about Trump, the stronger will be the argument that Sanders is the best candidate to prevail in the general election, despite the assumption by many that his self-identification as a “socialist” will doom him.

It would be naïve to think this will be an easy task. The corporate media remains a powerful force to reckon with. However, the more that Sanders and Trump defy its predictions the clearer it will be that Americans will need to tune out the echo chamber and learn to think for themselves. Should they face off in the general election, they will present the clearest choice of what kind of nation we want to be since the “Second Revolution” in 1800, when Jefferson defeated Adams on the promise that ours would not be a government that dictated to the people, but one that responded to the popular will.

Our goal as Americans should not be to assure that one or the other of the Duopoly parties wins, but to elect a president who can best address our common problems. We are at risk of leaving the next generation of Americans to be the first to have a lower standard of living than their parents. Fortunately, the media is performing at least one useful function that could help us change the tide by electing a champion of the People: It is informing the Trump supporters about why it would be so dangerous to elect a megalomaniac with no experience in politics and little understanding of how to do anything but appeal to the anger of his base. It is up to us to make them understand that they have an alternative in an independent who shares their anger at the corrupt Duopoly establishment.

The key is to do what Sanders supporters have largely failed to do in trying to convince Clinton supporters to adopt their point of view, which is to treat their differences of opinion with respect.  That is not as hard as it seems. We are used to having these discussions with others who consider themselves liberals and many of us have been shocked at the anger that greets any criticism of the anointed heir to the Obama presidency. It really shouldn’t be surprising that normally rational people get upset when people who agree on goals agree acknowledge what seems obvious to them: we cannot continue to accept the choice of corporate politicians in the DNC and expect to ever achieve the goals of the progressive agenda.  There is a simple reason that we need a political revolution, but for some reason the message is not sinking in with many of the Democratic Party faithful in the baby boomer generation. To paraphrase Bill Clinton’s campaign slogan, “It’s the corruption, stupid!” That is a non-ideological message progressives should be able to sell to conservatives.

It’s easier to be patient when you go into a discussion expecting disagreement, as long as you do not fall into the trap of expecting the other person to be convinced on the spot. It’s a matter of planting the seeds and letting them mature in an environment that is becoming increasingly hostile to both Trump’s extremism and Clinton’s cynical corporatism. Only the most dedicated Clintonite would argue that it is naively idealistic to worry about it the corruption of the system. It is certainly not an attitude we are likely to get from Trump supporters. We can expect wide agreement on this fundamental issue from conservatives who have recognized that politicians claiming to represent them are lying.

We are witnessing the fracturing of the façade of the Duopoly in the face of its glaring hypocrisy. The success of Sanders and Trump in their respective races has challenged the complacency of the corporate core of both major parties. This is a moment of historic opportunity to not only unify the left around a progressive agenda, but to gain support for it from many self-identified conservatives. Doubters should remember that there is historical precedent for this. Roosevelt was elected after a period of Republican dominance that led to the Great Depression. It was that economic pain that led Americans to challenge the simplistic beliefs they had bought into by Republican corporatists during the relative prosperity of the 20s. In the midst of our ongoing Great Recession, we should be able to do the same. Stripped of ideological rhetoric, Sanders’ platform is a common sense approach to getting America back on its feet.

NATIONAL AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS OF CLINTON’S RECORD ON FREE TRADE

                                                                       

Given the extraordinary importance of challenging the three major free “trade” agreements currently being considered, it is remarkable that Democrats have spent so little time discussing the differences between Clinton and Sanders on the issue. While it is perfectly understandable that the corporate media would continue to ignore the explosive consequences of TPP, TTIP and TISA, it is concerning that more attention has not been paid by voters who would be affected by the massive transfer of government power to transnational corporations.

For those who need reminding, the issues involve preserving national sovereignty, protecting internet freedom, allowing governments to control the devastating consequences of reckless financial chicanery by Wall Street, preventing the pharmaceutical industry from gaining even more power to rip off governments and consumers, promoting the interests of Monsanto and other powerful corporations, and much more.

The media blockade of information about the negative consequences of free trade has resulted in most Americans being ignorant of the consequences of the neoliberal philosophy of free trade. These policies have been championed by the Clintons and Obama and staunchly opposed by Sanders, highlighting the difference in their priorities. Establishment Democrats show allegiance to the transnational corporations that dump money into their campaign coffers, while progressives like Sanders are fighting to hold the line against increasing corporate power over governments and the people they are supposed to represent.

Clinton’s shifts of position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership are particularly revealing. After playing a pivotal role in negotiating the secret trade agreement, she began to express doubt about it around the time it became obvious she preparing to announce her run for the presidency. For months, she refused to take a firm position on the issue. Then, in an turnaround that surprised many (but shouldn’t have), she stated that she opposed the final product. Seemingly learning for the first time that it contained no real protections for American workers from the job losses that all free trade agreements produce, she disavowed her own work. Some think that it was no coincidence that she had this change of heart after Sanders had been quite vocal in his opposition to the increasingly unpopular agreement, as were unions.

For those whose memories are longer than the latest news cycle, this should have come as no shock. Although she claims she has always opposed NAFTA, her contention is demonstrably false. She very publicly promoted it when it was being sold to America in 1993, over the strenuous objections of labor and environmentalists. Her supporters also seem to have forgotten that she insisted during her 2008 presidential run that NAFTA had to be renegotiated. Although he proved to be a strong free trade advocate himself, Obama jumped on her inconsistency at the time. Her apologists say it is unfair to criticize her for what happened during her husband's administration. They fail to acknowledge that she launched her political career as “co-President." Thia was the main qualification she had to run as a carpet bagging Senator from New York. Whether she really privately expressed reservations about NAFTA prior to its passage is irrelevant. She clearly had her eyes set on a political career at the time, and was under no obligation to actively promote a policy she opposed. That is practically the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

Clinton’s claim that she was suddenly persuaded to oppose TPP because of failures that were evident in the agreement as she was helping to negotiate may seem disingenuous, but it would seem to be buttressed by her vote against the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. I say it would “seem” so because recently released emails indicate that she was privately lobbying for the agreement even while publicly opposing it.

One of the main objections to CAFTA, in addition to its typical lack of protections against job losses and environmental degradation, was the fact that union organizers in Columbia were being systematically murdered by right wing paramilitaries who appear to have been funded by the virulently anti-union Coca-Cola corporation. No problem for Clinton. She just claimed that the problem was improving, even though the number of murders the year before its passage was near record highs. 

Her blatant disregard for the lives of Central American workers mirrors her lack of concern for the lives of Hondurans murdered by a coup government she supports or their children, who are sent north unaccompanied by desperate parents hoping to spare them the violence that now plagues the nation. Her position on what to do about the flood of refugees from the violence of right wing US-backed governments in Central America is clear:  Send them back.

The Battle in Seattle against the WTO in 1999 gave hope to millions of people who understood the significance of the increasing power of transnational corporations over government. It was considered to be the opening shot in a war to defeat the neoliberal movement that was gaining unprecedented power during the Clinton co-presidency. Unfortunately, corporate power brokers upon which the Democratic Party establishment have allowed themselves to become dependent are better funded and organized. They are winning the war to establish David Rockefeller’s dream of a one-world corporate government, where nations would become an anachronism. Using their power over the mainstream media, they have hidden this reality from most Americans, even as they do it in plain sight.

The time to redouble the fight against neoliberalism is now. With a vote on TPP looming and the potential for worse to come, we can use the fact that both candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination and the leading Republican contender are on record as opposing TPP to rally opposition. We have to keep in mind though that only one of them has actually been in the front lines of this fight before now.

WHICH WAY TO THE REVOLUTION?

                                                                                

It’s fascinating to follow the discussion about the “Sanders revolution,” a vague phrase that lends itself to a variety of interpretations. Depending on your point of view, the term may be one of hope or derision. For others, it just provokes blank stares.

The idea of a political revolution inspires those who can see that today’s Democratic Party is the captive of a system in which special interest money finances increasingly expensive campaigns. In the post-Citizens United era, these people recognize the historic significance of a candidate making a serious run for President without the backing of corporations or wealthy individuals, and despite the efforts of well-connected party leaders aghast that he is challenging one of their own. Beyond setting an example of how to beat this corrupt system, Sanders is out to change it. He is increasingly making campaign finance reform a centerpiece of his campaign. To many of his supporters, the “revolution” is defined as ending a system where the wealthy determine who are viable candidates to ostensibly represent us, while at the same time protecting their interests.

Those who see the need to address the corrupting influence of money in politics find it hard to understand Democrats who can’t grasp why this prospect is causing such excitement. Party stalwarts are puzzled by the backlash against “the Establishment,” a term most Sanders supporters consider a euphemism for “corporatists.” In their frustration at what appears to be willful ignorance, they lash out at those who they should be trying to convince. Fortunately, Sanders’ popularity continues to increase with the exposure that the corporate media can no longer deny him. We will soon know if his momentum will continue to build fast enough to carry him past Super Tuesday. But even if it does not, the “revolution” must continue.

Critics of Sanders on the left argue that his campaign will actually undermine progress toward more lofty goals, such as ending capitalism.  Most commonly, this view holds that as long as people support Democratic candidates there is no hope for changing the system of which both major parties are part. Since Bernie has chosen to run as a Democrat and to throw his support to Clinton should he not get the nomination, so this reasoning goes, it is a no-win proposition. They then point out with what often seems like grim satisfaction, “How will people ever realize that the Duopoly is part of the problem?”

While they have a valid argument, they offer no reasonable alternatives. Voting for either of the corporate-captured parties is a sham? To some extent that is true, but what do we do about it?  Third parties are not viable, and given the state of leftist politics they will not become so before global climate change renders the point moot. Mass civil disobedience? In a country where the leading contender for the Presidency is the multimillionaire wife of a former President? Get real.

The naivete of these arguments is matched only by the arrogance of those of their proponents who call Sanders supporters naïve. The smug self-assurance of these self-styled radicals masks a deep cynicism that prevents them from seeing how the Sanders campaign might actually aid their cause. Those who scorn the idea that he is the vanguard of a revolution in any meaningful sense of the term don’t seem willing to consider how his campaign can advance the cause of a more expansive transformation of the political system. In time-honored leftist tradition, they are busy forming a circular firing squad to attack the Sanders campaign from a position opposite that of Clinton backers who are also trying to shoot it down.

Those critics who are serious about to build a movement for what they consider genuine revolution might want to consider the effect of dismissing millions of people who are at least aware of the need for a dramatic change. It is irrelevant that many may not fully comprehend what that means. It is impossible to create a mass movement if you expect everyone to agree with you. Differences are bound to arise and inflexibility causes schisms, destroying the solidarity on which any movement depends. It is elementary strategic thinking to consider how to work together where possible to achieve agreed upon objectives, even when there is disagreement on strategy or ultimate goals.  How in the world can anyone expect a mass uprising of a population so steeped in the current system that half of those who consider themselves “progressive” would consider voting for a candidate backed by the finance industry, apparently believing her claims to be its sworn enemy?

It is hard to see how anyone can argue with the idea that addressing the corrupting influence of money in politics is a good way to organize a movement. How many Americans would disagree with the notion that government doesn’t work because those in power put the interests of the 1% over those of the rest of us? The idea is so elementary that when Adbusters first wrote about Occupy, the idea of a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance was the single action item they suggested. Occupying Wall Street symbolized that the ultimate power behind that money was the banking and finance industry that nearly destroyed the economy (or is in the process of doing so) and with it, the middle class (not to mention the poor). With a well-defined enemy and a clear objective, the movement had a chance to become much more than a symbolic protest, The problem was that Occupy activists refused to prioritize goals, making strategic political action impossible.

Campaign finance reform is not the answer to all our problems, but it is the first step to finding one. If Sanders were to make this point clear, he might just convert a few skeptics. So far, he has focused on a promise to vet any candidates to the Supreme Court according to their willingness to overturn Citizens United. While laudable, Clinton has made the same promise. Despite the fact that this is yet another example of a promise to work on an issue she has avoided in the past and the fact that she depends on the system she now vows to destroy, her supporters trust her to keep it. That’s why Sanders should also be talking about his proposed constitutional amendment intended to end the doctrine that money spent to influence elections is protected speech.

The key to using this to build a movement is that as President, he could promote the idea of voting only for candidates who would support such an amendment, as suggested by Move to Amend, as well as other reforms like the American Anti-Corruption Act. For those unfamiliar with the latter, it would address a variety of other ways that special interest money can influence politics, including putting limits on lobbying to include closing the revolving door (or at least significantly narrowing it). Keeping the need to address the corruption of the system in the forefront of American consciousness cannot but help the effort to get Americans to sustain pressure on Congress to put the needs of people over profit. The only way to advance any aspect of the progressive agenda is to first address the corruption that has created the problems in the first place.

The Sanders “revolution” is just the first phase of the kind of fundamental change in American politics that can put us back on the path toward true representative democracy. How far we go will be up to us.

SANDERS V CLINTON: REVOLUTION OR CIVIL WAR?

                                                                                     

It would have been amusing if the stakes weren’t so deadly serious: The New York Times described Clinton’s narrow victory in Nevada as reassuring “an anxious Democratic Party” that she could still win the nomination despite Sanders’ surging poll numbers. While not quite saying so, the implication seemed to be that the Democratic Party doesn’t include the insurgents who support Sanders. This is a subtle indication of the obvious: there is a civil war going on in the Democratic Party, and the corporate media has sided with the Democratic establishment. In order to end this civil war, Sanders supporters must convince Democrats leaning toward Clinton to join them in a revolution against corporate rule.

While the candidates have confined themselves to occasional heated exchanges, most of the fighting has been going on in the alternative media, letters to the editor sections of newspapers, and social media. In the latter, the arguments are getting increasingly vicious. Sanders supporters are getting frustrated by what they see as the blindness of Clinton supporters to the need for "political revolution," whatever that means to them. While Sanders has never precisely defined the term, the context in which he refers to it suggests that it means creating a system where money does not determine who voters will get a chance to choose from to represent them.

If we accept this as the definition of the term, then the question becomes one of whether the millions of Clinton admirers are willing to give up the dream of helping elect the first female President in order to pursue what many consider a quixotic quest: addressing the corrupting influence of money in politics. Is that really a naïve idea? Sanders supporters who expect more from his election than just populist rhetoric do not think so. Although he has not made the point clearly on the campaign trail, Sanders doesn’t just think that overturning Citizens United is just a good idea: He has been actively working on it for years. Furthermore, he has very specific ideas about how to do it.  Not only would match Clinton’s promise to use a judge’s willingness to reverse the decision as a litmus test for Supreme Court appointment, he has already been attacking it with a more direct approach.

Sanders has introduced resolutions for constitutional amendments to effect campaign finance reform in each of the last three Congresses, the most recent one just last month. His strategy is not just overturn Citizens United, but the whole series of decisions that began when money used to influence political campaigns was declared protected “speech” in Buckley v Vallejo in 1976. Although the effort to pass a strong constitutional amendment has lost some momentum after the initial success of Move to Amend and other groups, the movement has not gone away. He could give it new life.

As a senator, his ability to advance the idea was limited by how much attention his efforts received, including in the “alternative” media. Now that Sanders is highlighting campaign finance reform in front of a national audience, the issue could form the nucleus around which to build a real movement, one that could unite not only Democrats but all Americans.  Regardless of political ideology, only the terminally naïve doubt that  it is the corruption of politics by special interest money that has frustrated efforts to effectively deal with almost every problem whose solution might affect corporate profits. As President, Sanders would be in a position to lead the effort to pass an amendment, using the power of the movement that he has begun to mobilize.

The theme of the Sanders campaign has been addressing corruption. He has returned again and again to the issue of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and particularly in elections. Although it was a point lost on most of her supporters, his pointing out in their last televised debate that Wall Street is a big Clinton backer was not an accusation of corruption.  Deftly ignoring the distinction, she played for sympathy by accusing Sanders of “smearing” her. The problem is that it is not possible to “smear” someone by pointing out relevant facts.

The sources of Clinton’s campaign funds are largely known, and she did not challenge the fact that she has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs alone. Sanders was too polite to mention that in total, she has received millions from Wall Street institutions and the industries in which they are most heavily invested (among these are the corporations that comprise the medical-industrial complex, raising questions about what makes her so sure that single payer will never come to the US even though it has been proven to work everywhere it has been tried around the world). As Sanders pointed out in frustration, it is hard to imagine why those who benefit from Washington’s corporate-centered policies would be throwing so much money at someone who calls herself their “greatest enemy” unless they understood that such threats are not to be taken seriously.

If Clinton is serious when she agrees with Sanders that Citizens United should be overturned, she should understand the importance of the fact that he is running without the benefit of SuperPAC backing or that of wealthy and well-connected establishment Democrats.  It is important to remember that the Supreme Court decision to remove the floodgates of corporate cash was based on the assumption that it did not “create corruption or an appearance of corruption.” So if we were to take her objection seriously, shouldn’t we be concerned about at least the appearance of corruption when her campaign is primarily funded by wealthy donors and corporations?

To repeat: pointing out that Clinton is very deeply enmeshed in a corrupt system is not the same as calling her corrupt.  As she points out, so are almost all other politicians. Impugning her character on this basis is a sure way to encourage her admirers to defend her against more valid criticisms.  A far more effective way to persuade them to back Sanders is to focus on the potential benefits of a Sanders win: It would prove that we don’t need to accept the candidates that the economic elite offer.  As president, Sanders can take the lead in promoting reforms like the American Anti-Corruption Act and making a constitutional amendment a litmus test in every congressional election until we have a Congress that puts our interests over those of the billionaire backers of the current crop.

That’s a pretty revolutionary idea. 

THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT SINGLE PAYER

                                                                              

It’s dismaying to see Hillary Clinton still repeating the discredited idea that a single payer health care system would be too expensive.  Although we already know it provides comprehensive and universal health care at a fraction of the cost of American’s non-system everywhere it has been tried, some of her supporters continue to find various justifications for opposing what polls show 85% of Democrats say they want. There has never been a better example of the self-defeating nature of establishment thinking in the Democratic Party.  Attitudes about Clinton are so fixed that you have to wonder, if the primary were a referendum on single payer, would Democrats actually reject it?

Of course, the election is about much more than that. Sanders has opened and closed the last two debates with well-honed arguments that taking on the corrupting influence of Wall Street would be his first priority. What he has not said in his comments about single payer is that concern for their Wall Street patrons was the reason Democrats took it off the table at the beginning of the health care reform debate in 2009. Their excuse was that it was “unrealistic.” Instead, they offered a bait-and-switch in the form of the Public Option. It was billed as a step to single payer because everyone would choose cheap, comprehensive Medicare-type over the spotty coverage of overpriced private insurance. However, Senator Schumer quickly ended that vain hope when he made a deal to handicap the Public Option so it could not compete with private insurance.

Those who understand the economics of single payer know that the “reform” debate was primarily aimed at bailing out the Wall Street-owned medical insurance industry that was in the process of pricing itself out of existence. This is the “death spiral” of insurance costs: Increasing costs drive people from the market, requiring further increases to maintain shareholder profits and industry executive bonuses, resulting in more people unable to afford insurance. Unchecked, this would soon have led to a situation where average Americans would be paying 50% or more just for insurance premiums. Obviously, this is unsustainable. Enter corporate Democrats, with a “reform” that guarantees millions more customers for the insurance industry, subsidized by taxes that go directly into the pockets of Wall Street investors.

Many rank-and-file Democrats failed to ask themselves what the suppression of the debate about single payer said about the chances of eventually electing a Democratic majority that would put the interests of people over profit. The answer is that the Democratic leadership, being dependent on Wall Street to control the White House, is insufficiently willing to challenge the corruption of the system. Until we find leaders in the party who will, there is no reason to expect anything to change.

Reforming campaign finance would make achieving single payer and accomplishing the rest of the progressive agenda possible. The alternative is abandoning hope of getting what we need in exchange for what we can get, in the name of “pragmatism.” In using this as a selling point for her candidacy, Clinton is apparently arguing that truly representative democracy is a naïve notion.  Elect her, she says, and she will use her experience navigating the existing corrupt system to fight for small, incremental victories that do not challenge the corporate takeover of American government and the economy.

Clinton claims that her experience will enable her to guide us gradually in the general direction of where we need to go. It would be very interesting to hear how she plans to do this in the face of a hostile Congress that is likely to continue to be dominated by Republicans who have a visceral hatred for her. Would Democratic chances be any worse with a “socialist” who has explained that all he means by the term is someone who will fight for all Americans, rather than compromise principle on the altar of expediency?

Sanders cannot pass single payer by himself, but neither can Clinton honestly promise to deliver any meaningful reforms of the Byzantine, unaffordable and woefully inadequate system of Obamacare. It will take a mass movement of Americans demanding their government put their interests over corporate profit to get real health care reform.

TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE, QUIT FOCUSING ON GLOBAL WARMING

                                                                                        

Earth Day has passed, but the task of saving the Earth continues. Since the annual observance of the first large scale People’s conference on the environment has become in many cases a memorial to past victories and in others a celebration of greenwashing, it’s true purpose now may  be to inspire us to take the time to reassess our strategies for accomplishing our most important goals.

As world temperatures continue to hit record highs year after year since the turn of the century, an increasing number of climate change skeptics are admitting that global warming is real. The problem is that most resisted the idea in the first place because it was too frightening.
Now they look for reasons to argue it is not an emergency. The problem is not that they are too frightened to face the reality of the human consequences if they are wrong: they are clearly capable of believing what they want to believe. Despite the scientific consensus that the phenomenon most of them denied until recently is real and caused by human activity, they are still willing to bet their children’s future that they are right and the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong. Therefore, it behooves those of us trying to get something done about climate change to start using some different arguments.

Naomi Klein pointed out in This Changes Everything that the real fear that is causing so many people to be in denial is the recognition that any real solution short of a miraculous scientific breakthrough would require violating the first commandment of free market theology:

“The government shalt not mess with the right of transnational corporations to extract the maximum profit out of their activities regardless of the environmental and other human costs.”

If we want to generate support for serious action to halt dependence on fossil fuels, we need to come up with arguments that do not depend on violating the dictates of the imaginary free market that most Americans believe real. Those who cash in on their gullibility have convinced them that regulation is root of all economic problems. In truth of course, it is the lack of rules to assure truly competitive markets that has undermined the stability of traditionally defined capitalism faster than its inherent flaw of requiring continuous growth would have alone. Perhaps they can be educated eventually, but getting people to question the almost religious belief that capitalism as they understand it is the ideal economic system cannot be done in time to save the planet from almost certain destruction. Here are a few arguments for getting off fossil fuels that do not require abandoning free market principles.

The costs of maintaining the world’s largest military should be added to fuel costs

My favorite argument is one that should appeal to the millions of Ron Paul fans who agree with his isolationism. Far from accepting the neocon use of the term as an insult, they recognize that refusal to engage in war for corporate Empire is consistent with real conservative principles. Making the case that US foreign interventions in recent history have been mostly about gaining control of fossil fuel resources is not difficult. This reduces the competition that is supposed to keep prices low in free markets. On top of that, around 50% of the US discretionary budget is spent on a military that acts as the muscle for the oil and gas oligarchs when the US has no real global rival. These wars have created a costly domestic surveillance system that is an affront to the rights of a free people. It is hard to see how any real conservative could object to ending the support of global conflicts for access to fossil fuels. In the process, it would also cut the tremendous amount of fuels used by a bloated US military.

Free market principles predict that prices will inexorably rise

This argument is simpler and easier to understand for those who don’t think deeply about politics or economics. It is obvious that as long as our dependence on fossil fuels continues, accessible supplies become more expensive. Prices will rise, especially when demand begins to exceed extractable supplies. This cycle of rising prices might have already happened if not for the slowdown in the global economy the banksters produced, even if it would have still been obscured by Saudi Arabia’s decision to overproduce as a weapon against an Iran desperate for oil revenue. Americans loathe any rise in gas prices. If they know that the increases would continue indefinitely and that the Wall Street types who have repeatedly wiped out their wealth before demanding to be bailed out by taxpayers were the chief beneficiaries, their loyalty to the system might be shaken.

Fossil fuels are protected from free market influences by the government it has corrupted

Everyone knows government has been corrupted by fossil fuels and other special interest money in politics. Making them bear the true costs of our dependence on fossil fuels can help turn the tide in favor of renewables in the market. Oil and gas are hardly subject to free market forces when they are subsidized by US taxpayers to the tune of $37.5 billion per year. Worldwide, that figure might be as much as $1 trillion. And these subsidies do not begin to cover the real costs of pollution and health care costs paid for by localities in affected areas. Despite these advantages, renewables are increasingly becoming competitive in a variety of markets, even without subsidies. One expert estimated that sometime this year, solar will become cheaper than fossil fuels in half the states. Renewables are already cheaper in Australia, most of the developing world and 42 of the largest 50 cities in the US. How much faster could we reach emissions goals if fossil fuels were not so heavily subsidized?

How can fossil fuels compete with free energy?

Some authors point out that individual rooftop solar does not produce energy as cheaply as either fossil fuel- or renewably generated power, but this does not change the fact that after upfront costs are paid, power is free to the homeowner or municipality that owns public buildings powered by solar. In addition, it can generate income from the sale of excess energy generated. It pays for itself, and with falling prices does so much faster than just a few years ago.  That should be a big inducement for those to whom the issue of addressing global warming is purely an economic one. In addition, the idea of freeing ourselves from the grip of an industry that isusually monopolistic should appeal to the free market true believer. If it destroys the centralized power industry, so what? That is what is supposed to happen in a free market when an industry becomes obsolete. In the process, the number of jobs produced will dwarf those lost. The only losers in this scheme are those who are so determined to see every penny of profit they can squeeze from a dying planet that they refuse to minimize their losses by getting out before it is too late.

The costs of converting are less than cleaning up the mess

There is an increasing willingness in the corporate media to admit that the costs of dealing with the global climate change that sane people now admit exists will be astronomical. It is getting more difficult to believe the lies about these costs with each passing year. Some of these costs will be born directly by the taxpayer, such as replacing vulnerable military bases on coastlines such as those in Virginia that are already experiencing significant impacts. In addition to the expense, this means that climate change is becominga real national security risk. Unlike those cited as the reasons for America’s obsession with getting involved in conflicts in the Mideast and North Africa. Those who aren’t swayed by the immorality of these wars may care about the cost.

This argument of course only belongs on this list if it does not challenge free market economics. Admittedly, for the government to spend money to try to save the planet would have an effect on the competitiveness of fossil fuels compared to renewables. Climate experts also believe this will require a massive government investment comparable to fighting WWII. If the effect is to devastate the fossil fuel industry and strand trillions of dollars in potential profits, it is a hard argument to sell. We can only hope that by making climate deniers think about these other issues, we can wake them up to the fact that if they are wrong, the consequences will be much worse than doing what scientists are telling us we need to do.

WE ARE ALL IRANIANS NOW

Iran has become the latest front in the resistance to the advance of the Anglo-American-Israeli Empire. As the US-led War of Terror has been raging all around the region, Iran has played a key role in defending Syria, Iraq and Lebanon from Saudi-financed and American and Israeli-backed terrorists who have become the proxy troops carrying out the Obama doctrine, first unveiled in the now-failed state of Libya. Iran is also believed to be providing some level of assistance to the Yemeni resistance to the GCC’s attempt to reinstall the imperial governor placed in power as a result of the 2011 revolt that toppled previous governor Saleh. Without apparent irony, this is claimed by the US and its Israeli partners to be justified in the name of “preserving stability,” even while they destabilize the entire region in accordance with the Oded Yinon plan.

As should be obvious to any informed and thinking observer, the intent of those nations leading the endless wars is to establish global full spectrum dominance, as outlined in the 2000 PNAC white paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses. While the main front in this offensive has been centered on the oil and gas-rich Mideast, the US and its partners in this criminal enterprise are operating everywhere on Earth. Ukraine is aflame while the CIA-backed USAID works toward its grandiose goal of staging another Color Revolution in Russia ala the Yeltsin coup. Northern Africa has been attacked by NATO in Mali and Libya, while the US sets up a neocolonial system with willing governments and Africom establishes a dominant military presence across the continent. Efforts to stage further coups against leftist governments continue. The pivot to the East has been heralded as a “response” to trumped-up Chinese hegemonic ambitions, though the clear intent is to militarily challenge China’s peaceful rise to economic dominance.

Thanks in large part to CIA influence, the corporate media has been remarkably effective at controlling discourse about US foreign policy, so much so that the average American remains clueless that their tax dollars are financing the expansion of a global Empire ruled by the transnational corporations that control US foreign policy in collaboration with their Israeli partners. They have yet to recognize that the US has become the victim of a corporate coup starting with the October surprise that led to the election of Ronald Reagan and completed when George Bush the Lesser was selected as the figurehead leader of the “free” world by the US Supreme Court. Stunning as it seems to outside observers, Americans still haven’t recognized that after 9/11, neocon plans were launched to establish a permanent fascist New World Order under cover of a “War on Terror.” If Americans allow that plot to succeed, they will be as much the slaves of those who carried it out as the rest of the world.

That is why events in Tehran are critical to all of us. Well-meaning peace activists who think it appropriate to attack authoritarian regimes for repressing criticism of their rule are aiding the propagandists by diverting attention from the point that the US is behind all the chaos in the Mideast. You do not have to support the domestic policies of governments that are resisting the advance of Empire in order to hope that they succeed. If they cannot successfully defend their sovereignty in accordance with international law, no nation is safe. There is no hope for freedom for any of us if the nations in the axis of resistance cannot hold the line against the spread of fascism.

Those who claim that the use of the term fascism is unjustified hyperbole need to look up the definition. The US and Israel have become hyper-nationalistic, imperialist and dominated by corporate interests. The US government in particular is spying on its citizens, punishing dissent and expanding police powers. Such a government does not need a dictator to be classified as fascist, particularly when like Germany in the 1930s it has willingly handed power to those who would now presume to rule them without their consent. Americans need to relearn the lesson that dissent is patriotic and that submission to an oppressive and imperialist government is not.

Now that there is a framework in place for an agreement on constraining Iran's fictional nuclear weapons program, the furious neocon backlash to peaceful negotiations will intensify. Even as the negotiations were approaching success, unreformed neocons like John Bolton were calling for an illegal preemptive attack on Iran. Having learned nothing from the severe damage aligning with the right-wing Netanyahu government against President Obama has done to the Zionist cause, brain-dead Republicans and Democrats who have sold their souls to AIPAC are determined to undermine what would be Obama's legacy achievement: Ending neocon control of US foreign policy and creating conditions to end America's War of Terror.


Cynics will point to some of Obama's actions and claim that it is naive to say that he really intends to challenge the criminal cartel that seized control of US foreign policy following the coup of 2000. They have a point, but the counterargument is stronger.

To review the evidence of his perfidy regarding his expressed desire for peace with Iran:

-In 2009, Obama called for Iran to ship a substantial portion of its enriched uranium to a neutral country. With the aid of Turkey and Brazil, an agreement was reached. Obama and his hardline neocon Secretary of State Killery Clinton promptly nixed the deal.

-In 2012, Obama proposed severe sanctions on Iran, citing its nonexistent nuclear weapons program, which both Israeli and US intelligence agencies had repeatedly declared to be imaginary, starting with the 2007 intelligence report that killed Cheney’s push for war at that time.

In view of this history, what is the evidence that Obama now wants to make a deal?

-His latest negotiations are obviously far more serious. He suggested the talks shortly after he decided not to bomb Syria following the false flag attack there. That required him to call for a vote in Congress, something that no one thought he would do. It was entirely unnecessary in the post-9/11 world of unrestrained executive war powers.

Israelis and Saudis, already apoplectic over the failure of their push for war with Syria, became almost hysterical in their reaction to Obama’s overture of peace with their common nemesis. This was a direct challenge to the power of AIPAC to determine US foreign policy.

-Recall that this all took place after Netanyahu spoke to Congress during the 2012 election, challenging the candidates to make a vow support an Israeli first strike on Iran. Romney jumped to the bait while Obama ignored it, letting his Jewish supporters point out the outrageousness of this interference in a US Presidential election.

-Obama has fought off neocon assaults on the peace process and turned many of them into political assets. His actions have made many Americans aware for the first time that the interests of Israel as defined by its  right wing government and their neocon allies are inconsistent with those of the US and the region. Though neocons never admit defeat even in the wake of serial disasters, the latest example of Netanyahu’s arrogance followed by the overwhelming show of support by Israelis in the recent election following his racist remarks and rejection of the peace process spells long-term trouble for neocon ideology and the Zionist interests it incorporates.

The momentum is clearly in favor of reaching a favorable  final agreement. The reaction to this prospect will further illustrate the dangerous control that AIPAC and its supporters have over the US government. If neocons continue to overplay their hand, it will be a win-win for those opposed to US imperialism and the War of Terror which has provided a cover sufficient to fool American into supporting endless war for corporate Empire. It will also brighten prospects for an eventual just settlement for Palestine.

So why has Obama had such an inconsistent policy?

As former CIA analyst Ray McGovern reported, Obama has admitted that his actions have been constrained by the knowledge of what happens to those who, like Martin Luther King, Jr, are too successful at fostering resistance to the power elite. Furthermore, McGovern argues that all Presidents who might be inclined to oppose the CIA toe the line because they fear it, especially after what happened to the last one who tried to oppose the military-industrial complex. That has led him to protect the CIA from responsibility for its crimes and to support some neocon policies that are clearly inimical to US interests. McGovern called that cowardly, but it is clear that a dead President is not in a position to change anything.

Let's give credit to Obama where it is due and work to make sure that this time, the US keeps its promises. Contrary to the claims of the corporate media about Iranian betrayals, the US record has been one of consistently lying and breaking agreements as a means to further Israel's claimed interests and those of the bankers behind the military-industrial complex. These are the real powers that ultimately determine US foreign policy, in part by always representing a mortal threat to any President who might dare act like one. If Americans speak with one voice as they did when Congress prepared to vote on attacking Syria, they may meet with similar success by providing Obama with the cover he need to avoid the fire of those who put Israel's declared interests above that of peace.