The upcoming Summit for Democracy as a time machine

 November 29, 2021

Introduction:

Biden’s “Summit for Democracy” scheduled for December 9-10, 2021, has posted its final list of invited countries.

Let’s take a look:

Albania Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Bahamas Barbados Belgium Belize Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Cabo Verde Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Estonia European Union Fiji Finland France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guyana

Iceland India Indonesia Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo Latvia Liberia Lithuania Luxembourg Malawi Malaysia Maldives Malta Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Mongolia Montenegro Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Norway

Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Republic of Korea Romania Saint Kitts and Nevis­ Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Serbia Seychelles Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa Spain Suriname Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Timor-Leste Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tuvalu Ukraine United Kingdom Uruguay Vanuatu Zambia

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also published this very helpful map:

Finally, let us also recall the purpose of this summit, as explained by the US Department of State:

1. Defending against authoritarianism
2. Addressing and fighting corruption
3. Promoting respect for human rights

Next, the first thing we need to do is to translate the above into plain English.  Here is how I would translate all this:

1. Faithfully supporting a single World Hegemony of the (already dead, but nevermind that, they can pretend it is still alive) AngloZionist Empire and obediently participate in any anti-Russian and anti-Chinese operations to prevent the latter from creating a multi-polar world.
2. Overthrow those government who refuse to participate in the operations mentioned under #1 and/or get rid of some truly useless and too embarrassing “our SOBs” (Zelenskii anybody?)
3. Participating in strategic PSYOPs to demonize those countries not invited to the Summit while allowing those invited to use any level of repression/suppression of dissent needed to stay in power.

How relevant is this summit in reality?

By itself, such a summit has zero value, if only because it tries to unite around a single (and vapid) agenda countries with totally different circumstances.  It is therefore pretty obvious that all that which come out from this grand show is some insipid declaration “for everything good and against everything bad” (Russian expression).

Results of the regional and municipal elections in Venezuela

One telling example shows how out of touch with reality this entire endeavor will be: the White House has even extended an invitation to uberloser Juan Guaido!  That in spite of the fact that the people of Venezuela have recently massively rejected Guaido and everything he stands for.

This, by the way, also strongly suggest that even though, for example, almost all Latin American countries have been invited to the Summit, this participation is a very good illustration of the comprador nature of the ruling classes in Latin American.  If the people were given the right to decide whether they want to subserviently support the “Yankee/gringo” Empire or not, very few, if any, of the invited countries would send delegates.

In other words, this Summit is first and foremost about APPEARANCES, a PR move destined to strong-arm each government on the planet to make a simple choice, the very same choice Baby Bush offered when he said that “you are either with us or with the terrorists”.  The updated version of this could be “you are either with us, or with the evil Russians and the evil Chinese”.

[BTW – This is the list of countries which have not been invited (for various reasons): Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cote D’Ivoire, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, The Holy See, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.]

The real (people’s) map would look very differently

What would a realistic map look like?

First, almost none of the Latin American countries would be represented.

Second, all of Europe would, but primarily because the EU’s comprador elites are desperate to get from this summit a legitimacy which they are increasingly losing in their own countries due to the truly phenomenal, I would even say, suicidal policies of the EU member states (economy, energy, COVID, crime, immigration, Wokism, etc.).

Next, all of Africa would participate, in a desperate attempt to get as much aid as possible (military, economic, political, etc.) and to show how abjectly subservient to their colonial masters all the African governments still are.  This is hardly their fault, true, but that does not change the abject reality of African politics…

Next, the wider Middle-East, India and Pakistan would also participate, but for very different reasons: these governments have all read the writing on the wall, albeit with some differences, and they know that the US is on the way out, but they want that “out” to be played on terms advantageous to them.  Nobody wants to be the “next Erdogan” and be overthrown by CENTCOM.  I would also add that while CENTCOM ain’t much of a military force anymore, there are numerous multi-billion dollar contracts still linking the USA to these countries and that is reason enough to show up at the Summit, and say all the right things, and then come home and return to business as usual.

Which leaves the entire Asian continent, including Russia, China, Central and Far East Asia.  Here the map is simple: countries near Russia and China are not invited, countries near(er) Australia are.  Asia currently is the continent with the most agency, by far, and the one with the brightest future due not only to its immense resources (human and natural) but also due to the fact that the two Asian giants (Russia and China) are moving together as one to begin to build the multi-polar world they eventually want to see worldwide on the continent they share.  Russia and China also happen to have the most powerful militaries on the planet (especially if counted together, which they increasingly should).

If Malcolm X was still alive today he would probably say that “all the house Negroes have been invited and all the field Negroes have not” (see here) 

The Summit for Democracy as a time machine?

I would argue that the upcoming Summit is like a time machine, not one which allows us to actually travel in time, but one which shows us who will be part of shaping the future of our planet and who will not.  The folks invited by the (already dead) AngloZionist Empire are either comprador elites, or regimes with no real agency (and, therefore, no real legitimacy), and a few desperately poor countries which are literally willing to do anything, anything at all, to please their current masters.  They have no real future to speak of.

As for the future, it is pretty evident that Asia will be, by far, the most important continent to set the agenda for the foreseeable future.  I personally believe that Latin America will be next, all that is needed their is for a few well chosen “dominoes” to fall and the entire continent will be flipped very quickly.  True, right now, if we ONLY look at the official map, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Bolivia look rather isolated.  But let’s look at this differently, the fact that these countries can survive while being surrounded by pro-USA regimes is a very telling sign by itself.  Furthermore, there are also two giants in Latin America: Argentina and Brazil, especially the latter.  Should Brazil be “flipped”, then that would have a huge impact on the rest of the continent.

Next, the two regions which will “fall” next would be the Middle-East, first, and eventually, Europe, second.

There is very little, if anything, the Empire or the USA can do about the Middle-East: the truth is that the future of the region will be set by Iran (the regional superpower) and Russia.  Yes, the Axis of Kindness countries (US+KSA+Israel) can still trigger a major regional war.  But they can’t win it.  That ship has now sailed.

With the EU, however, things are much more complicated and all the Kabuki theatre we currently see about the “imminent” Russian invasion is all about two things: first, “elegantly” get rid of the Ukraine (to a Russian invasion would be best) and about reasserting the Anglo dominance over the European continent.  That plan might still succeed, especially when we consider the very real political power the UK+3B+PU gang has ever EU decision (yes, even the UK still has a lot of influence over the EU ruling classes via its still very real financial power!).

As for Oceania and Africa, they simply don’t matter very much, the former a nicely isolated by distance, the latter has no agency and is totally dependent on some kind of foreign masters.

In the meantime, the brain-dead EU politicians, which should have been placed on suicide watch years ago, are still at it: NATO threatens Russia with “consequences” while the US declares that “all options are on the table“.  We can be sure that Putin personally and everybody else in Russia are absolutely *terrified* by such language, and that is why when the “imminent” Russian invasion does not materialize, the leaders of the (long dead) Empire will proclaim themselves “victorious” against the “Putin regime”!  Bravo!

And even if the Ukies succeed in forcing Russia to intervene, then NATO will proudly declared that its invincible might is what forced the Russians to stop (doesn’t really matter where exactly). Again, bravo!

All this craziness actually makes perfect sense, as an imaginary war is the only one these losers can “win”.

Andrei

• Summit for democracy an ‘anti-China ideological clique’; US definition of ‘authoritarianism’ outdated

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The myth of the ‘lesser evil’: Why US progressives back Biden

 

President Joe Biden took office this month after defeating Donald Trump in the 2020 vote (AFP/file photo)

Joseph Massad

29 January 2021 11:26 UTC 

As beneficiaries of the country’s imperialist system, supposedly progressive Americans have never truly sought radical change

Ever since I arrived in the United States to begin my university education in 1982, I have been baffled by arguments used by white (and some Black and Latino) American progressives, leftists and socialists to justify voting for Democratic presidential and congressional candidates.

Unlike mainstream liberal and conservative Americans, who believe their country is God’s gift to the world, the arguments of progressives often stress that Democrats are the “lesser evil” of the two contending parties.

The Democratic commitment to the rich was made amply clear with the major subsidies given to them by Clinton and Obama

Many agree that, in the words of Gore Vidal: “There is only one party in the United States, the Property party… and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt – until recently… and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”

Still, progressives always proceed according to the “lesser evil” theory. If I raised the question of US imperial policy, dubbed “foreign policy” in the US liberal mainstream media, I would be told by the more astute progressives that both parties were “equally imperialist”, and therefore their vote for the Democrats was justified by distinctions in their “domestic” policies.  

Still, because the elected Democratic presidents after Ronald Reagan, namely Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, were as neoliberal as Reagan and proceeded with his agenda of mercilessly dismantling the US welfare state, I remained at a loss as to what magnitude of difference existed between the two parties.

The more class-conscious socialists assured me that they were under no illusions that either party defended the white poor, let alone the downtrodden, impoverished racial minorities of Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. Indeed, they insisted that both parties defended the rich, with the Democrats also defending the middle class in a limited way, although that commitment had declined measurably since the Clinton years.

So what, I asked, are the essential benefits to middle-class Americans that you are defending as progressives, socialists and leftists? Their sober responses highlighted issues of healthcare, social security and women’s reproductive rights. I replied that all of the above had been weakened by the neoliberal Democrats.

Enriching the rich

Support for women’s right to abortion declined considerably when the Clinton administration declared that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare”. Obama acknowledged the arguments of pro-lifers and called for reducing the demand for abortion, while Joe Biden, until his recent campaign, was a regular supporter of the 1976 Hyde Amendment (he changed his position in 2019), which prohibits federal healthcare programmes from directly funding abortion procedures except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.

As for Social Security, a bipartisan effort began the war on it in a set of 1983 congressional amendments, which Reagan signed into law. Both Clinton and Obama attempted to cut Social Security and government health benefits to Americans during their respective administrations, but were prevented from doing so by the Monica Lewinsky scandal in Clinton’s case, and public opposition in Obama’s.

Biden and former President Barack Obama have been described as a ‘lesser evil’ (AFP)

As for health services, attempts to offer universal healthcare to all Americans were obstructed by Clinton and later Obama, who adopted a Republican plan to subsidise private, for-profit health insurance companies, rebranded as “Obamacare”, and who paved the way for the horror that Americans found themselves in with the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic. The US empire is falling apart. But things can always get worseOscar RickettRead More »

While President Donald Trump also proposed cutting health benefits, which he did not do, anti-Trump propagandists accused him of proposing to cut Social Security, which he never did.

What about the Democratic policies of enriching the rich? Yet again, the party’s commitment to the rich was made amply clear with the major subsidies given to them by Clinton and Obama. The latter subsidised them to the tune of  $350bn in his bailout of the banks at the expense of middle-class homeowners whose houses were foreclosed upon. Obama did not hold Wall Street firms accountable for the economic meltdown, which followed Clinton’s 1999 repeal of New Deal-era banking regulations, but rewarded them instead.

Ideological blindness

So what justifies progressive, leftist and socialist Americans voting for the Democrats as the “lesser evil”? Is it ideological blindness, or attachment to the cosmetic political language of Democratic politicians, whose actions might have been worse than Trump’s, but whose style of delivery tends to be “kinder and gentler”?  

Why did the policies of Clinton, which transformed the criminal justice system in 1994 to expand the mass incarceration of African Americans, not cause a public outcry among liberals? Indeed, it was none other than Biden who helped to write the crime bill – the same Biden who opposed the racial integration of schools in Delaware back in the 1970s. And what about Kamala Harris, the grand incarcerator, who may succeed Biden in the 2024 election, assuming he does not step down due to ill health before then?America Last: Coming to terms with the new world orderRead More »

Why did Obama’s deportation of millions of “illegal” immigrants not garner the kind of popular opposition that Trump’s policy, which is a mere continuation of Obama’s atrocities, has encountered? While the American Civil Liberties Union challenged Obama in the courts, such legal opposition never translated into a public outcry against the “Deporter-in-Chief”.

Why was there no outrage over the fact that it was only in the last few months of Obama’s eight-year term that his Justice Department finally prosecuted one lone white cop for the racist murder of an African American?

In four years, Trump’s Justice Department did not prosecute a single white killer-cop, but this was a continuation of Obama’s practices. Yes, Obama’s Justice Department pursued “pattern of practice” investigations against police departments, which Trump discontinued – but that is hardly a major achievement on Obama’s part.

Hypocrisy and propaganda

And, yes, the so-called “Muslim ban” – yet another of Trump’s racist policies against some Muslim-majority countries – which people forget was based on a list of countries prepared by none other than Obama.

A legitimate feeling of horror was expressed on account of the 13 federal executions of convicted criminals carried out by the Trump administration in recent months, but these were never compared with the thousands of people that Obama killed by checking targets off his weekly drone kill list. Does it not matter to US progressives and leftists that unlike his Democratic predecessors, Trump, while continuing some of the subcontracted wars that Obama started – and presiding over a rise in civilian deaths as a result of US actions – did not launch a single new all-out war on some hapless country?

There is no such thing as American ‘foreign’ policy when US power controls the entire globe, making foreign policy ‘domestic’ policy

Could all these people who voted for Biden (slightly more than half of those who voted) – especially the benighted, white liberal intelligentsia – not know that many of the things they complained about during Trump’s rule were in fact done by their own beloved liberal presidents?

Most of them know, and their campaign against Trump was nothing but hypocrisy for the sake of propaganda, so that the poor and downtrodden would believe that Trump was evil while Obama, Clinton, Biden and Harris were good – or at least, the “lesser evil”.

Complicit in imperial crimes

In my conversations with progressive, leftist and socialist Americans over the decades, I have tried to point out that the US is not just the “leader” of the world, as asserted by liberal and conservative Americans equally committed to US jingoism, but that the US has been since 1991 the primary ruler of the world.

I explain to them that as US citizens, they are the only people on Earth who have the right to vote for a government that rules the entire globe, and that they are thus complicit in American imperial crimes when they decide, based on some illusory domestic agenda of the “lesser evil”, to vote for a government that would launch wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people. I add that there is no such thing as American “foreign” policy when US power controls the entire globe, making foreign policy “domestic” policy. 

Iranians burn a US flag during a rally in Tehran on 12 April 2019 (AFP)

Like their liberal and conservative “patriotic” and imperialist compatriots, many progressive and socialist Americans are not moved by such arguments. Indeed, they enjoin poor white Americans (“the deplorables” as former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called them), along with downtrodden Black, Latino and Native American communities to join them in celebrating the Biden victory.

Why do they expect these Americans to celebrate with them, let alone the rest of the Third World – where millions have been killed by US firepower and covert operations since 1945, in wars launched by both Democratic and Republican leaders – when they know the US will probably initiate more wars against them? The reason is that these “progressive” and leftist Americans, like their liberal and conservative compatriots, are beneficiaries of the racist, classist and imperialist US system, which has always prevented them from seeking any real radical change.

The most they are willing to do is vote for a leftist imperialist Democrat, such as Bernie Sanders – who, like them, commits to changing very little, yet presumably also represents “the lesser evil”.

Joseph Massad is Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York. He is the author of many books and academic and journalistic articles. His books include Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan, Desiring Arabs, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians, and most recently Islam in Liberalism. His books and articles have been translated to a dozen languages.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

عن «هول» مشهد اقتحام الكابيتول على أنصار الغرب

 ابراهيم الأمين 

الإثنين 11 كانون الثاني 2021

الاحتجاج على اقتحام مؤيدي دونالد ترامب مبنى الكونغرس ليس ذاته لدى الجميع. لم يكن الأمر غريباً على بلاد أعاد نصف الناخبين فيها تجديد الثقة به رئيساً لولاية جديدة، فيما لم ينجح خصمه الفائز في خلق غالبية شعبية حقيقية تدين ترامب وأفكاره وسياساته.

لندع النقاش الأميركي الداخلي جانباً. ما يجب الالتفات إليه هي حال «الهلع» التي سادت «مناصري» الديموقراطية الأميركية في العالم. هلع من انهيار «الفكرة» التي سكنتهم، بأشكال مختلفة، على مرّ عشرات السنين. «الفكرة» التي ثبتت بكل أشكال الحياة: اقتصادياً من خلال آليات إنتاج وتحكّم بالسوق وربط الإبداع بمنظومة تحتكر تصريف المنتجات على أنواعها. سياسياً من خلال نظم تحكم بتبعية شاملة لا فكاك منها مع النظام الحاكم في أميركا. ثقافياً من خلال نمط تعليم وتفكير وتعبير في الصحافة والفنون والأكاديميا والدراسات، والسيطرة على مراكز الإنتاج الثقافي بكل أنواعه، حتى صار أسلوب الحياة الأميركية ــــ كما تعرضه المنتجات ــــ الأسلوب الأكثر إغراءً لشعوب العالم.

في بلادنا، ظهر هلع يعيد تذكيرنا بالتاريخ اللبناني الرطب. هذا التاريخ الذي تشكّل على وقع المنظومة الغربية نفسها (قبل أن تنتقل إدارة الاستعمار من أوروبا إلى أميركا). كما تشكّل وسط النجاحات الهائلة التي حققتها «الفكرة الغربية». لذلك، نجد اليوم في لبنان، فقراء وأغنياء، متديّنين وعلمانيين، متحزّبين ومستقلين، كلهم «يخشون» على هذه «الفكرة».

في لبنان، لا يقتصر الصراخ على مرجعيات ومنظومات تحذّر من خطر «أخذنا الى خيارات لم نعتدها». هنا، بالضبط، يمكن فهم القلق على الفكرة الغربية من غالبية كبيرة ترفض التعامل مع الوقائع الجديدة التي تحكم العالم. غالبية لا تزال تعتقد أن أحداً لن يكون قادراً على التقدم خارج قفص الغرب أو الارتقاء خارج القواعد الغربية. حتى بات الناس يتصرفون وفق «مسلّمة» أن الدواء والعلاج، كما التعليم والبرامج وأساليب التدريس، كلها لا يمكن أن تكون فعالة إلا إذا جاءت من الغرب. من يردّدون هذه الفكرة، لا يسألون أنفسهم كيف يعيش مئات الملايين من البشر خارج هذا القيد. أساساً، لم يسأل هؤلاء، مرة واحدة، عن المصدر الحقيقي للثروات التي يتنعّم بها الغرب المتقدم، وعن سرقة ثروات الشعوب ومواردها المادية والبشرية من قبل هذه الدول المستعمرة على مدى مئات السنوات. وهؤلاء يرفضون، مثلاً، تقبّل حقيقة أن كلفة تنظيف الشوارع في «سوليدير» تساوي كلفة تنمية كل عين الرمانة وفرن الشباك. وهم يرفضون الإقرار بأن سارقي حقوق الناس في وسط بيروت، أعادوا رسم قلب المدينة على شكل لوحة باردة وأن ذلك تمّ بثروات وقدرات غيرهم. وكأن أهالي حيّ السلم لا يحبّون لشوارعهم أن تكون نظيفة ومضاءة وفيها أرصفة ومجارٍ لصرف المياه.

في لبنان، يمكن فهم «الاستلاب» ليس على صعيد فكري أو ثقافي. الناس، هنا، غير مستعدين لتغيير حزب أو قائد أو مرجع أو إدارة أو مؤسسة. في لبنان، اليوم، من هو مقتنع بأن الكهرباء لا يمكن أن تأتي من الصين أو روسيا أو إيران، مفترضين أن مليارَي إنسان يعيشون في العتَمة، وأن المولّد إذا أتى من الصين فلن يعمل عندنا، وكأن إنتاج الكهرباء متعلق بحسابات جينية وجغرافية وطبائع بشرية. والأمر نفسه ينسحب على نواحٍ كثيرة في حياتنا اليومية.

باختصار، القلقون في لبنان على انهيار «الفكرة الغربية»، هم أنفسهم الذين تعايشوا مع دونالد ترامب عندما ثبت رئيساً، والتزموا قراراته وشعاراته وآليات عمله، واليوم صاروا يرفضونه، معتقدين ربما أن أميركا أصبحت بلداً آخر. يتجاهل هؤلاء أن ما فعله ترامب ليس سوى الكشف عن حجم الأوساخ الموجودة تحت السجادة في تلك البلاد العجيبة. وكل ما أظهره هو حجم التنازع الداخلي على طريقة إدارة الحياة داخل أميركا أولاً، وخارجها ثانياً.

اللبنانيون الذين يتعاملون مع الحدث الأميركي من موقع الخائف على النموذج الغربي، يعيشون وهم «الدور» الاستثنائي لهم في مستقبل الحياة. لكن ما هو أكثر وضوحاً في ردود الفعل اللبنانية، مثلاً، هو تصدّر الحملة من قبل من يلمسون تراجع دورهم العام في حاضر البلاد وشبه المستحيل في مستقبلها. هؤلاء نخب لم يعد لديها أوهام للبيع، ولا أفكار، وكل ما تفعله، عملياً، هو «النقّ» والاحتجاج على ما يقوم به الآخرون. وهم إذ يمارسون أسوأ أنواع الكسل، يفترضون أن رصيد «الفكرة الغربية» يكفي لكي يبقوا حيث هم.

خذوا، مثلاً، حالة وليد جنبلاط، باعتباره أكثر رموز نظام التبعية رسوخاً في لبنان، والوحيد الذي لم تشمله رياح التغيير التي عصفت بلبنان على مدى نصف قرن. قلقه من التغييرات العالمية لا يتعلق بقلقه على مصير أفكار أو مجتمعات، بل يكمن في إدراكه أن صلاحيته انتهت، لا كقائد سياسي أو مرجع طائفي، بل كمفعّل ومروّج للفكرة الغربية. لا يعرف جنبلاط، مثلاً، كيفية التواصل مع محمد بن سلمان. ويأخذ عليه أنه لا يعرف مكانة الزعامة الجنبلاطية ومكانة جبل لبنان. لا يريد جنبلاط الإقرار بأن وسائل التواصل بين البشر تتيح لأقران ابن سلمان من الحكام الجدد العثور على كل ما يبتغون في أمكنة أكثر نظافة ولطافة وخدمة من هذه الزاوية التي يسمّونها لبنان الصغير.

الخشية على «الفكرة الغربية» عندنا تشمل جيلاً جديداً رغب في الثورة والتغيير، لا لقلب المعادلات بل ليحجز لنفسه مقعداً حول الطاولة

لكن جنبلاط لا يستند في «مقاومته» إلى صراخه غير المجدي، بل يستند، أساساً، إلى المريدين والتابعين. أولئك الذين يخشون انهيار زعامة المختارة، تماماً كما يخشى زعيم المختارة انهيار الفكرة الغربية. ترى الناس هائمين على وجوههم وهم يسمعون عن إمكان إنتاج تسوية جديدة في البلاد من دون الوقوف على خاطر البيك. هؤلاء يعرفون حقائق هذه اللحظة التاريخية من عمر لبنان. ويدركون، جيداً، أنه ليس بإمكان جنبلاط أن يطلب منهم ما لا يقدرون على فعله، لا سلماً ولا حرباً ولا ما يحزنون. كما يعرفون، أكثر، أن جنوح زعامتهم نحو خيارات متطرفة سيقود إلى الانتحار الجماعي. وهي حالة موجودة لا عند جنبلاط فحسب، بل عند كل الزعامة التاريخية للمسيحيين، أو المستجدّة عند السنّة والشيعة أيضاً.

عندما برز نبيه بري ورفيق الحريري وسمير جعجع وميشال عون كحالات بديلة من القيادات السابقة، كانوا يحصدون الأنصار على خلفية إحداث تغييرات كبيرة، لا على مستوى تداول السلطة وطبيعة التمثيل فقط، بل على شكل إدارة شؤون الناس. لكن الحقيقة أن أربعة عقود أظهرتهم في موقع المنقلب على السلطة، لا على النظام، والساعي إلى احتلال موقع في النظام نفسه. وهم تورّطوا في كل آلياته حتى صاروا يظهرون الخشية على انهيار «الحلم اللبناني». وهي خشية يظهر لنا، مع التدقيق، أنها محصورة بمنظومة المكاسب والمصالح والامتيازات التي تشكّلت حولهم منذ أن تولّوا الحكم. في حالة هؤلاء، تحديداً، تجد زعامة وليد جنبلاط، مثلاً، لا تخشاهم على الإطلاق. كأن جنبلاط يعرف تماماً، مثل أركان النظام الاقتصادي والمالي والتجاري، أن هؤلاء سيحدثون ضجيجاً. صحيح أن البيك سيضطرّ إلى «التعامل» مع شخصيات لم «تتمرّن» في مدارس «العائلات الكبيرة»، لكنه لم يكن يوماً يخشى أن يقترب أحد من هؤلاء من أساس النظام الذي يستمدّ هو قوته منه. بل كان، ولا يزال، مصدر نصح لهم في كيفية التعامل مع المستجدات بغية الحفاظ على الامتيازات. جنبلاط يعرف جيداً أن أبناء الشوف وعاليه، مثلاً، يخشون فعلياً على الزعامة الجنبلاطية. الناس هناك لا يملكون حجة منطقية وعلمية للدفاع عن موقفهم. ولا يقدرون على شرح أسباب حاجتهم إلى هذه القيادة. تراهم يتراجعون في كل شيء: في التعليم والاقتصاد والسياحة والقوة والنفوذ والعدد أيضاً. ومن يرغب منهم في بناء تجربة جديدة أو اتّباع شرط الارتقاء الحقيقي اجتماعياً وثقافياً، فما عليه سوى الانفكاك عن هذه الزعامة.
في لبنان، الخشية على «الفكرة» لا تقتصر على أبناء المؤسسة التي رعاها الغرب وثبّتها، بل هي موجودة لدى جيل جديد، سبق أن رغب في الثورة والتغيير. لكن هذا الجيل لا يستهدف قلب المعادلات، بل يريد أن يحجز لنفسه مقعداً حول الطاولة. وإذا تعذّر ذلك بسبب حشود الجالسين من طوائف وملل، فإنه يريد أن يُفسَح له المجال ليجلس إلى جانبهم، كأصحاب بدعة الطائفة العلمانية، هو جيل يمارس اللعبة نفسها التي قادها «التغييريون» الممسكون بالسلطة اليوم، ويهوى الغرب ونمط تفكيره وعيشه وآليات الإنتاج فيه. وهنا تظهر الأرض الخصبة لمنظّمات الـ«إن جي أوز». هؤلاء، لا يبحثون عن تعزيز الموارد المالية والفكرية والعلمية لبناء نموذج مختلف يخصّ كل الناس، بل يريدون تعديلات تخصّهم كأفراد. لكنهم، كما هي حالهم اليوم، لا يريدون الخروج أبداً من دائرة التبعية للنموذج الغربي، ولذلك لا يرون مشكلة في التعامل أو التعاقد مع مؤسسات الغرب، فيتقاضون منها التمويل ويردّون الخدمات لها بالدفاع عن سياسات النظام الغربي ومحاربة كل منتفض عليه.

الفريق الملتصق بفكرة الهيمنة الغربية لا يرى، ولا يقبل، أي تطور في الجهة المقابلة من العالم. أميركا وأوروبا تخوضان أعنف حرب ضد الثورة التكنولوجية والإنتاجية التي تقودها الصين، فيما في بلادنا من لا يزال عالقاً عند مزحة: هل تدعوني لشراء سيارة صينية أو هاتف صيني أو مولّد صيني؟

لننظر إلى كيفية تفاعل هؤلاء مع معركة العالم في مواجهة «كورونا». عندما تستقرّ الأولوية بناءً على وهم تفوق «الفكرة»، لا يعود هناك مكان للعقل في البحث عن عناصر مواجهة الوباء والبقاء. لننظر الى الدونية الكاملة في مقاربة أزمة كورونا. دونية تمنع انتقاد النظام الغربي الفاشل في الشقّين: الإداري، أي ما يتصل بإجراءات الحكومات، والطبّي لناحية اللقاح والعناية الصحية. يصرّح عتاة هؤلاء، وهم جهلة في حقيقة أمرهم: هل تنتظرون لقاحاً من الصين أو كوريا أو روسيا أو إيران؟ وهم عندما يفعلون ذلك، إنما يرفضون أيّ نقاش حول فضيحة تعامل المنظومة الغربية مع الوباء، وحول دور الدولة المركزية، وحول حقيقة الإنفاق على الرعاية الصحية، وحجم العناية بمراكز الأبحاث العلمية خارج إطار الشركات التجارية، وحول قدرة الجسم الاجتماعي على تحمّل كلفة الإغلاق التام، وحول المعركة المتعلقة بالأضرار النفسية الناجمة عن اضطرار مجتمعات بأكملها إلى تجربة طريقة جديدة في التواصل بين البشر، وحول إلزامية التصاق العائلات بعضها ببعض، وفشل التكنولوجيا في معالجة السأم… الخ.

أنصار «الفكرة» خارج دول الغرب الأساسية. ومنهم في لبنان يعتمدون الإنكار وسيلة وحيدة في الدفاع عن كسلهم والتحاقهم بهذا المشروع الذي لا ينتج هذه الأيام سوى الأزمات. ولا يخرج منه سوى القهر والصعوبات والتهديد بالحروب والقتل.

المسألة، هنا، ليست أن تعجب أو توافق على فكرة بديلة يحملها الشرق بتاريخه الإمبراطوري، سواء من الصين أو روسيا، أو التجربة التفاعلية المستندة الى فكر ديني تاريخي كما تفعل إيران… المسألة هي أن تقرّ بأن هناك مشكلة في أصل الفكرة الغربية، وأنها دخلت مرحلة جديدة من التحدّيات الصعبة. المشكلة في أن هناك غالبية لدينا ترفض الإقرار بالوقائع الجديدة… كم من هؤلاء يعرفون ما يميّز مطار شنغهاي عن أهم مطارات أميركا وبريطانيا وألمانيا وفرنسا؟ كم من صحافي أو أكاديمي أو باحث جرّب، من موقع محايد، أن يبحث في الأسباب التي تقف خلف بقاء الحكم على ما هو عليه في كوبا وكوريا، رغم كل الضغط والحصار والقتل والتجويع؟

غالبية لبنانية وازنة لا تزال تتصرف كجزء من هذا العالم المسكون بفكرة غربية سيطرت على كل نواحي الحياة. الناس، هنا، يتصرفون وفق الرواية التي تقول إن اقتحام متظاهرين لمبنى حكومي أو وطني كبير متل الكابيتول أمر غريب. كيف يمكن تفسير غضب مثقفي الـ«ثاو ثاو» مما فعله أنصار ترامب، لكنهم يدعون بعض «الرعاع» إلى تدمير المؤسسات الوطنية. هؤلاء لا يفكرون لحظة واحدة في انتفاضة من أجل إنقاذ الجامعة اللبنانية، لكنهم يخوضون معارك قاسية، وليست كلها مدفوعة الأجر، دفاعاً عن الجامعتين الأميركية واليسوعية… لأنهم، في حقيقة الأمر، لا يريدون خسارة أي رمز يربطهم عميقاً بالفكرة الغربية. هؤلاء يسيرون في شوارع العاصمة التي أطلقت عليها أسماء محتلّين وقتلة من المستعمرين الغربيين، ويرحّبون برئيس فرنسا ويطالبونه بإعادة الاستعمار، لكنهم يرفضون فكرة أن يحيي مناضلون ذكرى قائد أممي وقف إلى جانبهم في معارك لا تزال حرارتها قائمة، كما هي الحال مع الشهيد قاسم سليماني.

الغرابة أننا، هنا، نواجه غالبيّة غير متراصّة، لكنها قوية، وتتصل بأناس يقفون اليوم أمام استحقاق لم يشعروا يوماً بقربه، عندما يكون صعباً للغاية أن تعلّم أبناءك القيم، ثم تقرّر الهروب من مواجهة التحديات خشية أن تخسرهم.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Refusal of Democrats & Republicans to Face Political Reality

 Source

Eric Zuesse November 1, 2020

Almost all of America’s Democratic and Republican voters are simply closed-minded, and refuse to acknowledge that each of this nation’s two political Parties is controlled by its billionaires and is profoundly corrupt, not allowing any progressive legislation (but only conservative and liberal legislation, which is backed by billionaires) to get through, nor any progressive jurist to receive a high court appointment, nor any progressive Presidential candidate to win the Party’s nomination — such as Bernie Sanders in 2016, and in 2020. It’s a dictatorship by America’s Republican and Democratic billionaires, no democracy, at all, and the vast majority of voters in each Party refuse to recognize this core reality about today’s America. To them, it’s Democrats versus Republicans, instead of billionaires versus the public. They are wrong, and they don’t even care that they are wrong.

For example, on the Republican side, the fact that Donald Trump’s coronavirus leadership has been a catastrophic failure and is recognized throughout the world to be so, is ignored by some and denied by others, but it’s not recognized by Republican voters — they are in reality-denial about it. Also, for another example, these voters are in reality-denial about Trump’s racism and race-baiting. They deny the clear evidence of it.

However, on the Democratic side, the fact that Joe Biden is profoundly corrupt is simply ignored, as is the fact that he stole the nomination from Sanders by lying through his teeth. As is the fact that Biden was the U.S. Senate’s leading advocate in the Democratic Party for continuing segregation (‘separate but equal’). He was a stealthy bigot, not only on segregation, but on criminal justice. Also, the fact that Biden is an ardent proponent of U.S. imperialism and of the privatization of infrastructure in the conquered countries so as to sell them off to U.S.-and-allied investors, is likewise totally ignored by Democrats. (The main difference between Biden and Trump on foreign policy is over which country is the most important to conquer: for Trump it’s China; for Biden it’s Russia; but both want to conquer also Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and a few others.)

Perhaps the truth that both Republican and Democratic voters resist more strongly than any other is that the Republicans’ leadership regarding coronavirus-policy has been disastrously myth-laden and bad, and that Democrats are better only in that they are not leading this disaster, but Democrats have actually gone along with Trump on it wherever the polls were showing that a majority of the public were supporting his policy on the given matter. In other words: Biden’s policy has been simply to gloat over Trump’s getting all of the blame, and to avoid crucial specifics on what his own policy and priorities would be. But a choice between two evils is still evil — it’s an evil system. What is evil there is not merely the options, but the corrupt system that restricts those options to only ones that are acceptable to the actual rulers, to the very few — the aristocracy — that benefit from, and control, the corruption. That’s what’s more evil than either of the two nominees is. It is the people who are financing their political careers. And this is the reality that the vast majority of America’s voters, in both Parties, refuse to recognize. They refuse to recognize the more-fundamental problem, which problem is the trap that the country has degenerated into. Without recognizing that more-fundamental problem, there is no way out of it — not even possibly a way out of it.

Here is how disastrous it is, as reflected in the coronavirus results:

Great leadership on this matter was recognized right at the very start of the soaring pandemic:

On 5 April 2020, Suze Wilson, of Massey University, headlined “Three reasons why Jacinda Ardern’s coronavirus response has been a masterclass in crisis leadership”, and she wrote of New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern:

Imagine, if you can, what it’s like to make decisions on which the lives of tens of thousands of other people depend. If you get things wrong, or delay deciding, they die.

Your decisions affect the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, resulting in huge economic disruption, mass layoffs and business closures. Imagine you must act quickly, without having complete certainty your decisions will achieve what you hope.

Now imagine that turning your decisions into effective action depends on winning the support of millions of people.

Yes, you do have enforcement capacity at your disposal. But success or failure hinges on getting most people to choose to follow your leadership – even though it demands sudden, unsettling, unprecedented changes to their daily lives.

This is the harsh reality political leaders around the world have faced in responding to COVID-19.

As someone who researches and teaches leadership – and has also worked in senior public sector roles under both National and Labour-led governments – I’d argue New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is giving most Western politicians a masterclass in crisis leadership.

Three communication skills every leader needs

When it comes to assessing New Zealand’s public health response, we should all be listening to epidemiologists like Professor Michael Baker [Otago U., “‘Overjoyed’: a leading health expert on New Zealand’s coronavirus shutdown [announced 23 March 2020], and the challenging weeks ahead” March 23, 2020]. On Friday, Baker said [“Coronavirus: NZ with a chance to be only Western nation to eradicate COVID-19 – expert”, 3 April 2020]. New Zealand had the “most decisive and strongest lockdown in the world at the moment” – and New Zealand is “a huge standout as the only Western country that’s got an elimination goal” for COVID-19. …

What has been the result of that policy?

At the moment, as I write, the definitive website tracking the Covid-19 cases and deaths around the world, which is https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries, shows that the United States has had 26,860 cases per million residents, and 695 deaths per million residents. By contrast: New Zealand has had 388 cases per million residents, and 5 deaths per million residents. Per million people, America has 69 cases for each coronavirus case in N.Z., and 139 deaths for each such death in N.Z. That’s the difference between a society that serves its population, and a society that doesn’t. The difference is huge multiples, not merely a few percent.

But not all of the blame for this goes to Donald Trump, and not all of the credit for this goes to Jacinda Ardern. A dysfunctional society, such as America, has far lower levels of public trust in its leaders, because it has far less reason than New Zealanders do to trust their leaders. Even if Trump had been trying to do what Ardern did, Americans would have been vastly more resistant to it, than New Zealanders were. New Zealanders love their country, and don’t hate each other trying to grab control of it, out of fear that ‘the other side’ might win, as the case is in America. In America, the actual other side — the behind-the-scenes rulers — already have control, no matter which of their two Parties dominates, and so the only real solution for that dictatorship is for the public to take the country back from them. But this can’t be done if the voters are in denial of that reality. The head-in-the-sand approach can’t do it. But that’s the approach in America.

If Michael Baker was able to recognize as early as March 23rd that N.Z. was “looking like the only Western country with a chance of eradicating COVID-19,” then maybe his prediction’s coming true (to the extent that it has) wasn’t only luck.

But how well have the best non-Western countries been doing on this matter? Here are the best coronavirus-performers among them (and, for the most part, they are countries that Americans have been taught to despise): Vietnam (12 and 0.4), Cambodia (17 & 0), Taiwan (23 & 0.3), Burundi (46 & 0.08), Niger (50 & 3), Thailand (54 & 0.8), China (60 & 3), Papua (65 & 0.8), Yemen (69 & 20), Chad (87 & 6), Burkina Faso (117 & 3), DRC (124 & 3). Mali (171 & 7), Benin (209 & 3), Somalia (246 & 6), Uganda (250 & 2), South Sudan (257 & 5), Togo (264 & 6), Liberia (278 & 16), Angola (283 & 8), Nigeria (298 & 5), Malawi (306 & 9), Syria (310 & 15), Sudan (311 & 19), Mozambique (386 & 3). And all of those can be compared to N.Z. (388 & 5).

Above those were: Rwanda (389 & 3), Sri Lanka (392 & 0.7), South Korea (506 & 9), Zimbabwe (554 & 16), Cuba (582 & 11), Madagascar (608 & 9), Hong Kong (which is China’s richest city: 706 & 14), and Japan (768 & 14).

The next-lowest Western country is Australia (1,076 & 35). Therefore, the two best-performers in the West were N.Z. and Australia, which suggests that one of the common factors for their shared remarkable success is simply their being geographically isolated in the same region, which is predominantly non-Western, more Asian.

Then, the next-best Western country is Finland (2,700 & 64). Then Greece (3,027 & 56). Then Venezuela (3,153 & 27). Then Norway (3,332 &51). Then Estonia (3,337 & 64). Then Lithuania (4,040 & 50). Then Germany (5,359 & 121).

America isn’t the world’s worst coronavirus-country, at 26,860 & 695, but it’s certainly the worst large country, because it is the world’s 12th-worst, and its population is 331.6 million, whereas the second-largest of the worst 12 has only 11.6 million: Belgium (27,661 & 931). The third-largest of them, Israel, has 9.2 million (33,770 & 265). The 4th-largest, Panama, has 4.3 million (29,796 & 607). Five of the worst 12 countries have under 1 million population. America is the unchallengeable giant of the baddies, but Brazil has 213 million population, and its figures, which place it as the 16th-worst country (25,328 & 738), are very close to America’s.

So: both of the bad giants, America and Brazil, have Governments that are diametrically the opposite of N.Z.’s Government. Whereas N.Z.’s is democratic socialist, America’s and Brazil’s are fascist libertarian (otherwise called authoritarian neoliberal). Of course virtually all countries call themselves “democratic,” but most (actually) are not — it’s just PR, propaganda, for them. An international survey in 53 countries asked residents “Yes” or “No” on “My country is democratic,” and America ranked #38 out of the 53, with the top 10 countries, in order, being: Taiwan, Denmark, Switzerland, S. Korea, China, Austria, Vietnam, India, Norway, and Argentina. At the very bottom, #53, was Venezuela.

It’s therefore obvious that, even if America was, at some former time, a great country, it isn’t any longer. But, if it used to be, then it has declined enormously. Surveys show that Americans don’t think that the country is improving, but instead that it’s “on the wrong track.” Obviously, America is getting worse, not better. Also obviously, neither of the two billionaire-controlled Parties even has any sincere intention of reversing that decades-long trend into the abyss. The people who control it won’t let go of it. And the public don’t want to take control of it. They don’t even want to recognize how dire America’s condition, and direction, are. More of the same is acceptable to them; and, so, control of the country gyrates from Democratic billionaires to Republican billionaires and then back again, ad infinitum, but being the billionaires all the time, no real change. The billionaires face no effective resistance, in America, because the voters for each of the two Parties think that their “them” (“not us”) is the other Party, instead of being the nation’s billionaires. In such a circumstance, what group will even try to take the country back from the few hundred individuals who have controlled it, now, for decades — at least ever since 1981, if not since 1945? It’s going from bad to worse, but how bad will it get? Is there anything to reverse that decades-long trend? Certainly, a prerequisite would be for Democrats and Republicans to face, no longer to deny, the political reality in America. Nothing indicates any such tendency, as of yet. Therefore, lots worse seems likely.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

No 2nd stimulus? Time to admit both parties want to destroy the average American

 

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden arrives at McCarran International Airport October 9, 2020, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by AFP)

Saturday, 10 October 2020 3:20 PM  [ Last Update: Saturday, 10 October 2020 3:24 PM ]

By Ramin Mazaheri cross posted with The Saker

With both parties unwilling to agree on a desperately-needed 2nd stimulus package amid Great Depression-levels of economic suffering, it should be crystal clear that both Democrats and Republicans are happy to destroy the average American in their lust for power.

It’s incredibly devilish, but just to achieve their short-term goal of winning the November elections both parties have proven that the ruin of Main Street is a perfectly acceptable price to paid.

Republican intransigence at least has an ideological component, albeit a terrible one: the largest pillar of neoliberal ideology is to slash the size of government at all levels – this explains why they refuse to concede to the Democrats’ intelligent call for hundreds of billions in stimulus funding for state and local governments.

Yet Republicans don’t seem to understand that their beloved “democracy with American characteristics” does have a flaw or two: the US is a federal system – the fundamental structure of this type of government is to empower local government and to reduce the power of the central government. Therefore, in any type of crisis the federal government is handicapped from the very start – US citizens are forced to depend on local governments. Yet a crisis like this – which saps local funding and tax revenue – makes a federal/national response the difference between life or death.

Democratic intransigence is harder to understand: why did they go months without even mouthing condemnation towards anarchic situations in places like Portland and Minneapolis, or against cases of violent looting which topples far more small-business households than corporate insurance companies? Why do they refuse President Trump’s call for a stand-alone stimulus package consisting of another $1,200 check to households? Everyone reading this is aware of the general statistics: as recently as two weeks ago 42% of all US households said they have endured job losses or reductions in wages – more aid is urgently, urgently needed and has been for months.

It is irresponsible to not objectively consider the widespread claim over here: Democrats are sowing as much disorder and suffering as possible in order to oust the incumbent because, of course, how can an incumbent possibly survive this catastrophe? Democrats have history on their side (if perhaps not the popular vote): the only one-term presidents in the past 50 years – Jimmy Carter and George Bush I – were doomed by recessions far, far more minor than this one.

So it seems as if Republicans are fine with – on an ideological level – the social chaos necessarily caused by a people without a government. It seems that Democrats are fine with – on a practical level – months and months of hellish social and individual suffering if it means they can win back the presidency. 

The answer in almost every country would be obvious: surely a third party must be turned to?

But the duopoly in the US system is so firmly entrenched that there simply is no third party. Democrats throw up huge obstacles to keep left-wing parties like Greens or socialists from even being on local ballots, while Republicans do the same for more right-leaning parties like the Libertarians. Beyond this very real collusion, which in any non-Western country would be denounced as rendering elections not at all “free and fair,” a “winner take all” system means that third parties can make no incremental gains, only sweep to power in a landslide. Such a shift hasn’t happened here since the collapse of the Whig Party in the 1850s.

Trump, however, was indeed something of a third-party landslide, history will prove:

Because they were so fed up with the disregard and corruption of Washington half the country elected a totally non-partisan non-politician like Trump (he has changed his party affiliation five times), mainly because of his promise to drain “the Swamp” and, thrillingly, dangling the promise of prosecuting people like “crooked Hillary” in a China-like anti-corruption drive. Unfortunately for these voters not only has Trump proven to have no coherent political ideology at all (nor the ability to acquire one over four years of daily political briefings), but he has depressingly done his very best to win the acceptance of the political establishment. Trump has “become the Republican Party” even though he was voted in to destroy it and to provide an alternative to it. The Republican Party knew that – this is why they rejected Trump’s candidacy all the way until May 2016. Indeed, it’s too bad that Trump handles rejection so well.

Despite his stupidities, vulgarities and baggage, in 2016 Trump was indeed the “vote for change” to half the United States. Yet due to his four-year effort to win “The Swamp’s” approval, which is proof that he is not a truly “populist” politician at all, in 2020 he cannot be considered, like Barack Obama in 2008, the “hope candidate”.

So who is the “hope candidate” for an already deeply cynical and embittered American populace which is now also economically-desperate and patriotically aghast?

Because Trump has actually rendered no genuine change in Washington – he has merely been absorbed by the Swamp’s quicksand – there are only two choices, and both choices are the same as they were prior to the 2016 Trump phenomenon: inconsequential third parties or abstention.

A vote for third parties like Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Green Party or even the Libertarians is the only ballot an American with free will can cast and truly feel like they have not sanctioned the 2020 destruction of their own country by the entrenched elite.

Trump is accused of being a “strongman” or a “caudillo”, but 2020 proves it is the Clintons, McConnells, Bidens, Bushes and Pelosis who are the largely-despised and clearly incompetent leaders who could not care less if the country goes to ruin as long as they don’t lose their slices of privilege.

2020 has removed the emperor’s clothes: the US is a banana republic, and the one interest which predominates is not fruit but elite privilege.

“Privilege” is not a word one hears in the United States: the Iranian Islamic Revolution was openly “anti-privilege”, but this term (when used politically) is so foreign that it is not at all comprehended by the average American, I have found. So, clearly, the problem is cultural and not just limited to the area around Washington DC.

Regardless, in the 21st century votes must be made. Or not made – by not voting an American does indeed give powerful ammunition to non-Americans to assert that this current US system is domestically rejected. But the decisions of Washington’s duopoly in 2020 are absolutely incomprehensible unless one considers the possibility that they are not at all concerned with the citizenry.

The lack of a 2nd stimulus is incomprehensible and completely shameful, but both parties are clearly behind it. All of the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” of the past four years cannot explain the actions of the Democratic Party since March.

And make no mistake: an additional $1,200 – if it does somehow arrive – is totally inadequate, given the prices in the US: From March until October $1,200 works out to less than $7 per day. Trust me that the average American is screaming every day about this paltry sum, even if their Mainstream Media prefers to talk about stock prices every hour.

The reality is that the redistribution of wealth which we are discussing – a “People’s QE” – is something which the US has only seen one of, ever. Why should we expect the right-wing, dog-eat-dog American system to release a second tranche of direct aid to privilege-less American households?

Economically, culturally and politically the United States is lost in the modern wilderness – how very far gone they are? But in just a few weeks they could cast a single vote to change one of these things immediately, but not with a vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)

---

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!