|
FOCUS: On Leaders and Demagogues |
 |
|
Monday, 26 October 2015 11:50 |
|
Reich writes: "America is the only democracy in the world where anyone can declare himself or herself a candidate for the presidency - and, armed with enough money, possibly even win. Which makes it all the more important that we distinguish leaders from demagogues."
Robert Reich. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
On Leaders and Demagogues
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
26 October 15
 mong the current crop of candidates for president of the United States, who exhibits leadership and who doesn’t?
Leadership isn’t just the ability to attract followers. Otherwise some of the worst tyrants in history would be considered great leaders. They weren’t leaders; they were demagogues. There’s a difference.
A leader brings out the best in his followers. A demagogue brings out the worst.
Leaders inspire tolerance. Demagogues incite hate.
Leaders empower the powerless; they give them voice and respect. Demagogues scapegoat the powerless; they use scapegoating as a means to fortify their power.
Leaders calm peoples’ irrational fears. Demagogues exploit them.
My list of great American leaders would include Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Frances Perkins, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
In his second inaugural address near the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln urged his followers to act with “malice toward none, with charity for all.”
In his first inaugural at the depths of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt told Americans the “only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts.”
In 1963, as African-Americans demanded their civil rights, Martin Luther King, Jr. urged his followers “not to seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.”
My list of American demagogues would include Senator “Pitchfork” Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina, who supported lynch mobs in the 1890s; Father Charles Coughlin, whose antisemitic radio rants in the 1930s praised Nazi Germany; Senator Joseph McCarthy, who conducted the communist witch hunts of the 1950s; and Governor George C. Wallace, the staunch defender of segregation.
These men inspired the worst in their followers. They scapegoated the weak and set Americans against each other. They used fear to stoke hate and thereby entrench their power.
Back to the current crop of Presidential candidates: Who are the leaders, and who are the demagogues?
The leaders have sought to build bridges with those holding different views.
Rand Paul spoke at Berkeley, for example, seeking common ground with the university’s mostly-progressive students.
Bernie Sanders traveled to Liberty University where most students and faculty disagree with his positions on gay marriage and abortion. “I came here today,” he said, “because I believe from the bottom of my heart that it is vitally important for those of us who hold different views to be able to engage in a civil discourse.”
Other candidates, by contrast, have fueled division. Ben Carson has said being gay is a choice. “A lot of people who go into prison straight and when they come out they’re gay,” he says, “so did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”
Carson has also argued that Muslims should not be allowed to become President. I “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
Donald Trump, meanwhile, has charged that Mexican immigrants are “bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
Trump has lashed out at those who he charges come to America to give birth, so that their children will be, in his term, “anchor babies” – arguing that “we have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell.”
And after one of his followers charged that Muslims “have training camps growing where they want to kill us,” and asked Trump “when can we get rid of them?” Trump didn’t demur. He said “a lot of people are saying that” and “we’re going to be looking at that.”
Nor has Trump inspired the best in his followers.
At one recent rally, after Trump denigrated undocumented workers, his supporters shoved and spit on immigrant activists who had shown up to protest. At other Trump rallies his followers have shouted at Latino U.S. citizens to “go home” and yelled “if it ain’t white, it ain’t right.”
Trump followers have told immigrant activists to “clean my hotel room, bitch.” They’ve beaten up and urinated on the homeless, and and joked “you can shoot all the people you want that cross illegally.”
America is the only democracy in the world where anyone can declare himself or herself a candidate for the presidency – and, armed with enough money, possibly even win.
Which makes it all the more important that we distinguish leaders from demagogues.
The former ennoble our society. The latter degrade and endanger it – even if they lose.
 |
|
FOCUS: It's Game On in Iowa for the Democrats |
|
|
Monday, 26 October 2015 10:24 |
|
Galindez writes: "Bernie Sanders has, for the first time, drawn clear differences between himself and Hillary Clinton, setting the tone for the next few months."
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks at a concert he was hosting to raise support for his campaign at the Adler Theater on Friday in Davenport, Iowa. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
It's Game On in Iowa for the Democrats
By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
26 October 15
 n the lead-up to Iowa’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, I thought the hype was going to lead to a letdown. But Saturday was the biggest day so far in the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination. I have not hidden the fact that I am supporting Bernie Sanders. I have to admit, though, that Hillary Clinton had her best week so far. First came the media convincing everyone that she won the first debate, then came Joe Biden deciding not to run, followed by her testimony before the Benghazi committee. She capped off the week with a rally of thousands in Des Moines with Bill Clinton and Katy Perry, followed by a well received speech in front of 6600 people at the J-J Dinner.
Bernie Sanders also had a great day Saturday that set the tone for the stretch drive to the Iowa Caucus, 100 days away. The theme of the day for Sanders was “The Revolution Starts Here.” Supporters wore t-shirts and carried signs with that message. His Des Moines rally ended with a march across the Women of Achievement Bridge and an address at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. After leading his supporters across the bridge, Bernie took the stage with Steve Earle’s “The Revolution Starts now” playing on the sound system.
Martin O’Malley held a smaller rally before the dinner where he played guitar and addressed his supporters. With the race down to three main candidates, O’Malley will need a major stumble from Clinton or Sanders to have a chance to win the nomination.
6600 Democrats filled Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines for a major fundraiser for the Iowa Democratic Party. In 2007 President Obama stole the day with John Legend and a similar march to the venue. The room was packed with supporters of all three candidates. Each campaign was allotted tickets to purchase. Unions and other political groups were also allotted tickets. Just an estimate, but I would say Clinton probably had the support of half of the room. Sanders clearly had most of the other half with a much smaller section of O’Malley supporters.
Bernie Sanders
Bernie was the first to take the stage, right after President Obama addressed the crowd via video. Sanders used the video message to launch an attack on the Republican Party “amnesia.” Bernie reminded everyone how bad the economy was when Obama took office. He gave the president credit for turning the country around. Bernie then thanked the crowd for not staying on the sidelines. He laid out the issues of the political revolution that the campaign is all about.
“You are standing up and fighting back. That’s what you are doing. And that’s what my campaign is about. When you see the middle class of this country disappearing, and people working two or three jobs so their families can survive, you don’t shrug your shoulders. You fight to raise the minimum wage and pay equity for women workers. You fight for a massive federal jobs program to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of good paying jobs. You fight for an economy that works for working families and the middle class, for our kids and our seniors – and not just for the people on top.
“When you see the United States having more people in jail than any other country on earth – disproportionately African-American and Latino – you are demanding that we invest in jobs and education for our young people, not more jails and incarceration.”
Sanders also for the first time drew clear differences between himself and Hillary Clinton, setting the tone for the next few months.
“And let me be clear about the current trade deal that we are debating in Congress, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is not now, nor has it ever been, the gold standard of trade agreements. I did not support it yesterday. I do not support it today. And I will not support it tomorrow. We had a chance months ago to stop it in its tracks on the vote for fast track authority. That vote was the fork in the road and I’m glad I took the right road at the right moment in time.
“And if you agree with me about the urgent need to address the issue of climate change, then you would know immediately what to do about the Keystone pipeline. Honestly, it wasn’t that complicated. Should we support the construction of a pipeline across America and accelerate the extraction of some of the dirtiest fossil fuel in the world? To me, that was a no-brainer and that is why I have opposed the Keystone pipeline from the beginning.
“My friends, I want to bring you back to a very eventful year and a tragic moment in the modern history of our country. The year is 2002. The issue is whether Congress should vote to invade Iraq. Public opinion and most of the media were for the war. And it turned out that big majorities in Congress were too. The vote was 296-133 in the House, 77 to 23 in the Senate to give President Bush the authority to go to war. Let me tell you that I listened to what Bush had to say, to what Cheney had to say, to what Rumsfeld had to say. I didn’t believe them and I voted no.”
Bernie closed by promising that he would never abandon any segment of the population, black, white, hispanic, gay or straight, young and old, men and women, poor and working class, just because it is politically convenient.
“So let us go forward together and tell the Republicans that their reactionary agenda may work for the billionaires, but not for ordinary Americans, and we are going to defeat them.”
Martin O’ Malley
Martin O’Malley was the next candidate to take the stage. When I arrived in Iowa in February I was impressed with O’Malley as a candidate. I thought he understood how to win in Iowa and would be a threat. What nobody expected was that Bernie Sanders would take up all the oxygen to the left of Hillary Clinton. O’Malley was positioning himself to be the alternative to Clinton, but Bernie Sanders beat him to the punch. O’Malley gave another great speech. He always does, but what I hear over and over from Iowans is that he is too rehearsed. O’Malley is the perfect package, he looks the part. The problem is progressives voted for the perfect package eight years ago and then watched him maintain the status quo. On the issues there is not much daylight between Martin and Bernie. What Bernie has is authenticity. Bernie has been fighting the establishment for 30 years. O’Malley may indeed be a great progressive, but he has to show it. His record as governor of Maryland was a good one, but to the rest of the country he looks like a well polished politician in a political climate that is rejecting that. Again, he gave a great speech, but really said nothing that changes the race.
Hillary Clinton
I was on the press riser on the Hillary side of the arena. It was very loud. This was the first time I saw real excitement for Hillary Clinton in Iowa. She is clearly the party establishment candidate. The question remains how much of that excitement is bought and paid for. The campaign itself has a large staff with lots of interns. The super-PACs all have staff in Iowa as well, along with interns of their own. Saturday was in no way all staff and interns, but they do a great job firing up the crowd. They had the glow sticks and rehearsed chants from sign wars against O’Malley’s super-PAC at previous joint events.
It was a fantastic speech, well crafted, with many applause lines. It was well received in the Clinton section.
Clinton went directly after the support of those who had been supporting Joe Biden: “And by his side every step of the way has been Vice President Joe Biden. He has fought passionately for middle class families and middle class values. Let’s show him how much we appreciate Vice President Joe Biden and all he’s done for our country. Let’s give it up for the vice president.”
She often took shots at the Republicans: “And, you know, I sometimes wonder whether you sign up to be a Republican candidate for president, they put you into some kind of time machine. And they take you back 50, 70, 100 years, because they keep saying the same out-of-date, out-of-touch things.”
She didn’t mention Bernie Sanders by name, but did take aim at him when she said, “But I know, I know and you know, it’s not enough just to rail against the Republicans or the billionaires. We actually have to win this election in order to rebuild the middle class and make a positive difference in people’s lives. We have to build an America again where success is measured by how many people work their way into the middle class, not how many CEOs get bonuses; by how many children climb out of poverty, how many families can afford health care, how many young people can go to college without taking on years of debt. That’s how we should measure success in this country.
“As I said at the debate in Las Vegas, I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”
Clinton also took direct aim at Donald Trump: “And I still believe, as a smart man once said, there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed by what is right with America. So I hear Donald Trump when he says, we have to ‘make America great again.’ Well, here’s what I say: America is great. We just have to make it fair and just. We have to make America work for everyone, not just those at the top.”
There were several big applause lines. Here are a few:
“And companies that ship jobs and profits overseas shouldn’t get tax breaks, you should get tax breaks again.
“I’ve spent my life working for children, women, families, and our country, from the kitchen table to the peace table, trying to even the odds for people who have the odds stacked against them. And I’m just getting warmed up.
“That’s what I’m fighting for, for the struggling, the striving, and the successful. I’m fighting for everyone who’s ever been knocked down, but refused to be knocked out.
“And together, we’re going to build an America where there are no ceilings for anyone, where no one gets left behind or left out, and yes, where a father can tell his daughter, you can be anything you want to be, including President of the United States of America.”
Without a doubt the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner was the culmination of a great week for Hillary Clinton, but it was also a good week for Bernie Sanders, who has entered a new phase in his campaign. The narrowing of the field will allow Bernie to focus on sharpening the contrasts between himself and Hillary Clinton. Without Webb and Chafee in the race, the next debate will be more focused on their differences.
The polls in Iowa show the race to be close. Clinton has recently regained the lead, but there was a stretch where Sanders led. It is harder to poll support in a caucus like Iowa since only the most committed show up to publicly support a candidate. My sense is still that the excitement in Iowa is for Bernie, but Hillary is showing signs of momentum. With less than 100 days to go it’s “Game On” in Iowa.
Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton's Failed Libya 'Doctrine' |
|
|
Monday, 26 October 2015 08:39 |
|
Parry writes: "One could argue that those who devised and implemented the disastrous Libyan 'regime change' - the likes of Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power - should be almost disqualified from playing any future role in U.S. foreign policy."
Hillary Clinton speaks at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., on Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015. (photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)
Hillary Clinton's Failed Libya 'Doctrine'
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
26 October 15
As the long-running Benghazi investigation returns to center stage with another round of Hillary Clinton’s testimony, the former Secretary of State’s larger failure remains obscured – how she once envisioned the bloody Libyan “regime change” as the start of a “Clinton Doctrine,” as Robert Parry reported last July.
(Originally published on July 1, 2015)
 ecretary of State Hillary Clinton fancied the violent 2011 “regime change” in Libya such a triumph that her aides discussed labeling it the start of a “Clinton Doctrine,” according to released emails that urged her to claim credit when longtime Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was deposed. And Clinton did celebrate when Gaddafi was captured and murdered.
“We came; we saw; he died,” Clinton exulted in a TV interview after receiving word of Gaddafi’s death on Oct. 20, 2011, though it is not clear how much she knew about the grisly details, such as Gaddafi being sodomized with a knife before his execution.
Since then, the cascading Libyan chaos has turned the “regime change” from a positive notch on Clinton’s belt and into a black mark on her record. That violence has included the terrorist slaying of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, and jihadist killings across northern Africa, including the Islamic State’s decapitation of a group of Coptic Christians last February.
It turns out that Gaddafi’s warning about the need to crush Islamic terrorism in Libya’s east was well-founded although the Obama administration cited it as the pretext to justify its “humanitarian intervention” against Gaddafi. The vacuum created by the U.S.-led destruction of Gaddafi and his army drew in even more terrorists and extremists, forcing the United States and Western nations to abandon their embassies in Tripoli a year ago.
One could argue that those who devised and implemented the disastrous Libyan “regime change” – the likes of Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power – should be almost disqualified from playing any future role in U.S. foreign policy. Instead, Clinton is the Democratic frontrunner to succeed Barack Obama as President and Power was promoted from Obama’s White House staff to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations — where she is at the center of other dangerous U.S. initiatives in seeking “regime change” in Syria and pulling off “regime change” in Ukraine.
In fairness, however, it should be noted that it has been the pattern in Official Washington over the past few decades for hawkish “regime change” advocates to fail upwards. With only a few exceptions, the government architects and the media promoters of the catastrophic Iraq War have escaped meaningful accountability and continue to be leading voices in setting U.S. foreign policy.
A Dubious Validation
In August 2011, Secretary of State Clinton saw the Libyan “regime change” as a resounding validation of her foreign policy credentials, according to the emails released in June and described at the end of a New York Times article by Michael S. Schmidt.
According to one email chain, her longtime friend and personal adviser Sidney Blumenthal praised the military success of the bombing campaign to destroy Gaddafi’s army and hailed the dictator’s impending ouster.
“First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. … You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. … The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’”
Clinton forwarded Blumenthal’s advice to Jake Sullivan, a close State Department aide. “Pls read below,” she wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic. That’s my hesitancy, since I’m not sure how many chances I’ll get.”
Sullivan responded, saying “it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point. … You can reinforce the op-ed in all your appearances, but it makes sense to lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine.”
However, when Gaddafi abandoned Tripoli that day, President Obama seized the moment to make a triumphant announcement. Clinton’s opportunity to highlight her joy at the Libyan “regime change” had to wait until Oct. 20, 2011, when Gaddafi was captured, tortured and murdered.
In a TV interview, Clinton celebrated the news when it appeared on her cell phone and even paraphrased Julius Caesar’s famous line after Roman forces achieved a resounding victory in 46 B.C. and he declared, “veni, vidi, vici” – “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Clinton’s reprise of Caesar’s boast went: “We came; we saw; he died.” She then laughed and clapped her hands.
Presumably, the “Clinton Doctrine” would have been a policy of “liberal interventionism” to achieve “regime change” in countries where there is some crisis in which the leader seeks to put down an internal security threat and where the United States objects to the action.
Of course, the Clinton Doctrine would be selective. It would not apply to brutal security crackdowns by U.S.-favored governments, say, Israel attacking Gaza or the Kiev regime in Ukraine slaughtering ethnic Russians in the east. But it’s likely, given the continuing bloodshed in Libya, that Hillary Clinton won’t be touting the “Clinton Doctrine” in her presidential campaign.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.
|
|
Tony Blair Is Sorry, a Little |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=34274"><span class="small">David Swanson, David Swanson's Blog</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 26 October 2015 08:37 |
|
Swanson writes: "Now, your average unindoctrinated 10-year-old might conclude that overthrowing foreign governments has been a disaster any which way it's done, and therefore ought not to be done at all. Not our friend Tony Blair."
Tony Blair and George W. Bush at Bush's ranch. (photo: Reuters)
Tony Blair Is Sorry, a Little
By David Swanson, David Swanson's Blog
26 October 15
 hile George W. Bush is apparently proud of everything he's ever done, Tony Blair came dangerously close to facing reality this weekend when he admitted there were "elements of truth" in the view that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the principal cause of the rise of ISIS (among other catastrophic results of that invasion).
At the same time, Blair lied that the war was an honest mistake based on bad "intelligence," and claimed there was no clearly superior alternative anyway:
"We have tried intervention and putting down troops in Iraq; we've tried intervention without putting in troops in Libya; and we've tried no intervention at all but demanding regime change in Syria," he said. "It's not clear to me that, even if our policy did not work, subsequent policies have worked better."
Now, your average unindoctrinated 10-year-old might conclude that overthrowing foreign governments has been a disaster any which way it's done, and therefore ought not to be done at all. Not our friend Tony. In the end he's offered a non-apology on the grounds that anything else he might conceivably have done -- including refraining from overthrowing the Iraqi government at all -- would have been just as bad:
"I find it hard to apologize for removing Saddam. I think, even from today in 2015, it is better that he's not there than that he is there," Blair said. You have to hand it to Blair, for a global spreader of democracy through death, he boldly ignores any question of whether the people of Iraq agree with him. They do not. Back in 2004, the BBC bragged that it could get 49% of Iraqis ("almost half"!) to say that the invasion had been "right." In 2007, an Iraqi poll found that 90% of Iraqis believed they'd been better off before the invasion. In 2011, a U.S. poll found that many more Iraqis thought they were worse off, than thought they were better off, because of the invasion.
Perhaps those ignorant Iraqis just can't see how much better off they are. That would explain why they had to be invaded and occupied in the first place. But a careful examination of the death, injury, trauma, environmental damage, infrastructure loss, and societal devastation brought to Iraq by Bush, Blair, and company establishes the war on Iraq from 2003 forward as one of the world's worst events.
Clearly the hell created in Libya in 2011 does not rival the damage done to Iraq. The hell being created in Syria does begin to rival Iraq, but it has been steadily worsened by Western efforts to overthrow the government, not by Western restraint. For that matter, it has been seriously worsened by the previous invasions of Iraq and Libya, as well as by the steady arming of the region with U.S. weapons over the past several years.
Tunisia just brought home a Nobel Peace Prize in large part due to having a couple of lucky breaks, possibly related to each other. First, Tunisia sits on less oil and gas and in the way of fewer oil and gas pipelines. Second, it has received far less "help" from U.S. and European militaries. For the most part, the Pentagon and U.K. have done to Tunisia what Tony Blair literally cannot conceive of doing in Iraq, Libya, or Syria, namely, left it the heck alone, as it found its own way to better government.
But, one might ask, how can the West just stand by as brutal governments abuse their people?
Well, the West never does just stand by. Occasionally it overthrows those governments, making everyone even worse off. Far more often it arms, funds, and supports those governments -- as in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the new Iraq, etc. -- keeping everyone in their current state of suffering.
In Blair's 2010 memoir, he wrote that former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney had "wanted forcible 'regime change' in all Middle Eastern countries that he considered hostile to U.S. interests. . . . He would have worked through the whole lot, Iraq, Syria, Iran." But, of course, that's not a list of the nations doing the most damage to the world or their own people. That's a list of the nations refusing to pledge their obedience to Washington, nations "hostile to U.S. interests."
And there we see why Tony Blair doesn't consider the views of Iraqi people before declaring that "it is better that he's not there than that he is there." From the point of view of Western weapons companies, Western oil companies, Western friends and associates of Tony Blair, he's perfectly right. It is better that all those people were killed and the region thrown into chaos for many years to come.
One must adopt a radically different perspective to hear the meaning when I say, It is better that Jeremy Corbyn leads the Labour Party, and that even CNN now tries to ask Tony Blair to answer for his crimes.
|
|
ow did Donald Trump get his start? He did it the same way self-made American men have been doing it since time immemorial: hard work, bootstraps, determination, elbow grease, perseverance, and a tiny little pile of money from his daddy.
