September 1, 2017
by Paul Street
The Idiotic Lecture I Keep
Getting
A recurrent problem with some
who read Left essays on U.S. politics is that a writer of such essays can’t
criticize a Republican policymaker or politician without some “radical” reader
sending that writer a snotty lecture on the writer’s supposed failure to
understand that Barack Obama, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, and rest of the top
Democrats are terrible too.
It’s very odd. It doesn’t
matter how many times I have quoted the young Upton Sinclair or Eugene Debs on
how the two dominant and capitalist U.S. political organizations are (in
Sinclair’s words in 1904) “two wings of the same bird of prey.” It’s irrelevant
how many times I have used the late Sheldon Wolin’s phrase “inauthentic
opposition” to describe the Democrats – or how many times I’ve noted that that
both reigning parties are captive to the same “unelected and interrelated
dictatorship of money and empire.”
If I dare to criticize Donald
Trump, I will get the same absurd online messages telling me that I am an
apologist for the party of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and that I need to
understand that the Democrats are capitalist and imperialist. “Paul,” one of
these clowns – I’ll call him Big Bad Bob – recently wrote me:
“stop buy[ing] into the ‘Big
Bad Republicans’ line. It’s a Con Game designed to implant the idea in the
minds of the public that there is a genuine difference between the Democrats
and the Republicans. They are a team. Need to read that again? THE DEMOCRATS
AND REPUBLICANS ARE A TEAM! Both of them are paid and working for the Bad Guys,
the centers of Capitalist power. Stop cooking up rationalizations of why your
candidate is better than the other guy. They are both Capitalists and
Imperialists.”
Gee, you don’t say. I had no
idea.
Do I really have to attach an
end-note listing my publications and speeches about and against Obama, the
Clintons, and the Dems (an end-note that would run at least five pages even
with a small font) every time I criticize a Republican? Do I seriously have to
prove for the thousandth time my grasp of the elementary fact that the
Democrats and Republicans “are both capitalists and imperialists”? (Though I
never say they’re identical, with no differences at all, because that would be
idiotic: the “two wings of the same bird of prey” have different if joined
histories, different ethnocultural/demographic and regional constituencies,
different funding bases, and different ideological and other permutations, of
course. They need some real differences order to sell the corporate and
imperial duopoly as “democratic” politics).
Imaging a Hillary Clinton
Presidency So Far
Here, for it’s worth, are my
reflections on what would be happening in America right now if Hillary Clinton
(who Big Bad Bob calls “your [my] candidate”) had managed to squeak out an
Electoral College victory (a far from fantastic possibility) last November.
Yes, we would have been spared many of the terrible outrages, indignities and
absurdities of the orange-tinted, malignantly narcissistic, Twitter-addicted,
and eco-cidal beast called Donald Trump. But it wouldn’t be a pretty
story, trust me.
Let’s start with the very
elementary fact that Trump would not have conceded defeat. Recall that
candidate Trump incredibly refused to honor the result of the election unless
he emerged as the winner. The political campaign consultant and occasional CounterPuncher
Geoff Beckman all-too commonsensically elaborates:
“Trump won the election by 77
electoral votes and he still screamed about 5-8 million phony voters and hired
Kris Kobach and Hans Van Spakovsky to ensure that Democrats were barred from
voting. Had he lost in a few states by 1%, he would have said the
election was fixed and demanded recounts. Hilary — showing the dearth of sense
for which she is known and reviled– would have demanded that there be no
recounts (‘Al Gore don’t get a recount– why should he?’). Since a number of
those states were in Republican hands, you would have had [Wisconsin Governor]
Scott Walker, [Michigan Governor] Rick Snyder and maybe [Ohio Governor] John
Kasich working against her. That would have gone on for months.”
Let’s assume Hillary Clinton
survived a recount. Washington would be mired in the worst crippling partisan
warfare since 1861. Congress would be in full revolt. The presidency
would be endlessly mired in the email scandal. “And,” Beckman reminded
two days ago, the Republicans’ “thing #1 (after another Obamacare repeal) would
have been impeachment based on her email server.”
Indeed. Impeachment would have
been a strong likelihood given the partisan balance in the House, though
conviction and removal (requiring two-thirds of the Senate) would likely have
been avoided.
Meanwhile, the right-wing
militias (at least 500 strong near the end of Obama’s reign) would be on the
murderous march. Who knows what their homeland body count would be by now
with Trump, Breitbart, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh et al. egging
them on to new levels of frothing white-nationalist and hyper-masculinist
paranoia and violence?
“Crooked Hillary” has long
been the gun-toting hard-right’s top bete noire – a bigger enemy for them than
even the dastardly “Kenyan Marxist-Lenninist and Reparations Advocate Barack
Obama”? A Clinton45 presidency would have pushed the looney-tunes,
paranoid-style right into new heights of apocalyptic brutality.
The Clinton 45 administration
would be loaded with top globalist ruling-class and imperial operatives from
Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations. A dangerous Russophobic war
hawk and a dedicated enemy of left popular nationalism in Latin America, Mrs.
Clinton might well have initiated significant direct and dangerous military
conflict with Russia in Syria or Ukraine and already orchestrated a U.S
overthrow of the Maduro regime in Venezuela. She would be doing this to the
measured applause of CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
Just how much a President
Hillary’s likely mass-murderous militarism would reflect her strong ideological
commitment to the American Empire Project (never forget her U.S. Senate vote to
let George W. Bush criminally invade Iraq if he wanted to [he did]) and how
much it would reflect a “wag the dog” need to deflect attention from domestic political
chaos is an interesting question.
The anti-war movement would
remain largely non-existent, crippled by so many liberals’ and progressives’
strange, and deeply conditioned inability and/or refusal to see Democrats as
the war mongers they are
Hillary’s Wall Street speeches
(the ones Bernie Sanders pressed her to release) suggest strongly that a Madam
President Clinton would be working toward the privatization of Social Security
or at least the rollback of Social Security benefits while otherwise and more
generally advancing the Bob
Rubin-approved-neoliberal-pseudo-“inclusive”-capitalist agenda she and her
husband have trail-blazed for decades. Serious union organizing would remain
essentially illegal, wages could continue to stagnate, wealth would continue to
concentrate into ever fewer hands. A new financial meltdown would beckon.
This would set the GOP up for
gaining yet further hard-right-wing power in Congress after the 2018 mid-term
elections. The nation would be waiting for a right-wing presidency possibly
worse than Trump’s in 2021 or 2026.
As under Obama44 and
Clinton42, the nation’s disproportionately Black, Latino, and Native American
poor would continue to endure harsh socio-economic and criminal justice
oppression – with little if any help from the federal government despite best
effort of Identity-politicized liberals to rally them to the defense of the
Democratic Party.
Maybe it was best to go
through this TrumPence shit sooner rather than later. The rightmost party
wants to completely deregulate energy and accelerate the exterminist cooking of
the planet beyond human livability. Is it better to confront that
horrific reality now or in four or eight years, when capitalogtenic climate
change has moved us closer to extinction?
The Obstruction Out
It would be useful, perhaps,
for a Democrat to be seen sitting atop the corporate and imperial state.
One ultra-left theme (another staple in my email in-box) welcomed Trump
as the “spark for the revolution we need.” But it doesn’t really work
like that, I’m afraid. Horrible moronic white-male Republicans in the
White House tend to reinforce the narrative that the national fix is electing a
Democrat. Masses of people are more likely to get it that a radical popular
uprising is required when a sitting Democratic administration demonstrates that
the dismal, dollar-drenched Dems are every bit as corporate as the other
capitalist party – and that “everything still sucks” when the hold the highest
office. The Democrats are better at posing as an Opposition Party – and thereby
coopting real popular resistance – when they are out of office than when they
are “in power.”
But, of course, Hillary, like
Obama after 2010, would have Republican and Congressional “obstruction” to
blame for her failures, making it all too easy for the Democrats not to own the
state-capitalism they help advance.
So that’s my take on how
wonderful things would be if “[my] candidate” (right) Hillary (I voted Green as
usual) had won.
In the Absence of a Left, It
Doesn’t Really Matter….
Ultimately, I increasingly
find, tactical considerations on whether it’s better for those of on the left
to have a Democrat or a Republican in the White House are fairly immaterial in
the absence of an actual and functioning Left in this country. Let’s say
you think it’s better to have the GOP in – this out of some Maoist or other
“backlash theory” of revolution (“heightening the contradictions” and all
that). Or let’s say you share my longstanding (if fading) sense that
Democrats in the White House tend to be more educationally useful in
demonstrating how both of the capitalist parties suck (something I understand
very well, whatever Big Bad Bob wants to think). In the absence of serious Left
organization beneath and beyond the quadrennial, major-party, big-money, big
media, and candidate-centered electoral spectacles that are sold to us as
“politics” – the only politics that counts – it really doesn’t matter all that
much. Either way, we’re screwed.
Neither progressive policy
proposals nor radical societal vision beyond the current reigning unelected
dictatorships are in short supply on “the Left.” Leftists are commonly,
even almost ritually told that they carp and complain without offering
solutions. But as
Noam Chomsky wrote eleven years ago, “there is an accurate translation
for that charge: ‘they present solutions and I don’t like them.’” What is most
missing on the Left are not policy and societal solutions but rather cohesive,
resilient, long-lasting radical organization tying together the various
fragmented groups and issues around which Left progressive and Leftists often
fight very good struggles in the U.S. Without serious, durable, unified, and
convincing Left organization, neither revolutionary vision nor reform proposals
are going to go very far.
This is no small matter. Given
capitalism’s systemically inherent war on livable ecology – emerging now
as the biggest issue of our or any time – the formation of such a new
and united Left popular and institutional presence has become a matter of life
and death for the species. “The uncomfortable truth,” Istvan Meszaros
rightly argued 16 years ago, “is that if there is no future for a radical
mass movement in our time, there can be no future for humanity itself.”
Last year, as every four
years, the U.S. “Left,” such as it is, tore itself up in the usual quadrennial
debate about how to best respond to the narrow and stupid, plutocratic
electoral choices on offer from the horrid party and elections system. We can
obsess and hold our breath until we’re blue in the face about supposedly nice
cops (Carter, Clintons, Obama) versus bad cops (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II,
Trump) – about execution by bullet versus execution by hanging, death by heart
attack vs. death by stroke – or we can stop, breathe, and dig down to do the
elementary work of building ongoing, dedicated, popular movements beneath and
beyond the masters’ deadening election cycles.
No comments:
Post a Comment