RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Bernie Sanders and the Squad Are Being Marginalized at the DNC Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55732"><span class="small">Sophia Tesfaye, Salon</span></a>   
Tuesday, 18 August 2020 09:10

Tesfaye writes: "Bernie Sanders [spoke] on opening night, but the virtual DNC seems crafted to tune out progressive voices."

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks as Senator Bernie Sanders, from right, and Representative Ilhan Omar, from left, listen during a news conference on Capitol Hill. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks as Senator Bernie Sanders, from right, and Representative Ilhan Omar, from left, listen during a news conference on Capitol Hill. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images)


Bernie Sanders and the Squad Are Being Marginalized at the DNC

By Sophia Tesfaye, Salon

18 August 20


Bernie Sanders will speak on opening night, but the virtual DNC seems crafted to tune out progressive voices

emocrats appear as united as can ever be expected, kicking off the strangest Democratic National Convention in living memory, a somber and toned-down entirely virtual affair this year. As the nation watches the coronavirus death toll slowly climb toward 200,000 and braces for the reopening of schools in some strange and tense new fashion capacity, it's become painfully obvious that Donald Trump is a clear and present danger. Based on the apparent coalescence of the base after a contentious presidential primary season, Democratic voters understand that. And without an in-person convention, this year's DNC won't feature the infamous intra-party floor fights that marred 2016's festivities.

Bernie Sanders opens the week with his keynote address on Monday evening, dubbed "We the People" night by the DNC. Sanders will then hold a virtual town hall, apart from the convention, which will feature Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., fresh off her easy primary victory, along with progressive organizers and Joe Biden's director of progressive outreach. Sanders delegates also plan to hold a "shadow convention" outside the DNC. 

Leading Sanders surrogates Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan have already announced they plan to vote no on the DNC's platform — which does not include either support for Medicare for All or marijuana legalization, two progressive policies that garner majority support with Democratic voters. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York is the only Sanders supporter, aside from the former candidate, who gets a speaking slot this week even though about one-fourth of this year's delegates are Sanders supporters. She only gets one minute. 

That's it. That's the outreach. Former Ohio governor John Kasich, a Republican, will receive a bigger platform at the Democratic convention — and that just about sums up the state of the party less than three months ahead of the election. The triumphant center claims it is extending a hand to progressives and NeverTrump Republicans but is leaning hard in onl one of those directions. 

Yes, these are serious times and the threat of a second Trump term should be all the persuasion necessary this go-round for both groups to support Biden. But Democrats are clearly not capitalizing on their nearly all-virtual convention to reach key groups it failed to reach last time. "The four-day event includes only three Latinx headliners and entirely leaves off Muslim Americans, each making up a complex, diverse group of individuals who Biden is hoping to turn out in record numbers," progressive activists pointed out to the Daily Beast. The convention is supposed to be a unifying event for the party where Democrats from all factions come together but this year's DNC lineup doesn't reflect the political complexities of the moment, as Salon's Andrew O'Hehir recently took note

Ever since Biden swept to victory on Super Tuesday and the subsequent primaries, Democratic primary voters in various places have delivered a different and more complicated message. Three more longtime incumbent members of Congress have been primaried out by more progressive opponents this year, including a committee chairman, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, and the scion of a Black political dynasty in St. Louis, Rep. William Lacy Clay of Missouri. 

Another committee chair, Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York, survived by an eyelash after a painfully slow six-week vote count. Two other New York progressives — City Councilman Ritchie Torres in the heavily Latino South Bronx, and former Justice Department lawyer Mondaire Jones in the largely-white northern suburbs — defeated establishment-supported Democrats for open House seats, and will become the first two openly gay Black members of Congress. Similar conflicts lie ahead: Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee and grateful recipient of Big Pharma and financial industry dollars on a grand scale, faces an intriguing challenge from Alex Morse, openly gay 31-year-old mayor of the working-class city of Holyoke.

Progressive policies and politicians have seen electoral success before and after Biden's rise. As voters in Missouri recently voted for progressive challenger Cori Bush over incumbent Rep. Lacy Clay, they also passed the expansion of Medicaid in the red state. Three members of the far-left plank known as the Squad — Omar, Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez — easily defeated primary challengers backed by big-money donors. After all the "moderate" presidential candidates quickly coalesced around Biden ahead of Super Tuesday, Sanders quickly realized the fight was over and led progressives into a unity campaign behind the apparent Democratic nominee. It's curious that neither the DNC platform nor the speakers' lineup go very far to acknowledge the effort. 

If there is a chance for major outreach to progressives this week, expect it on Wednesday when Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is set to speak as Joe Biden's running mate. Among Black Americans, 78 percent approve of her selection, according to a new Washington Post poll. Considering the national explosion of the Black Lives Matter movement against racist police violence, Harris has a historic opportunity to forcefully address the mood of the streets. Along with speeches from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton and a performance by Billie Eilish, that evening will offer a "Ladies Night" vibe that serves as a striking contrast to whatever Trump and the Republicans have to offer the following week. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
'It Is What It Is': Michelle Obama Picks Trump Apart in Gripping DNC Speech Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55731"><span class="small">Joan E. Greve and Lauren Gamibino, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 18 August 2020 09:10

Excerpt: "Michelle Obama eviscerated Donald Trump during her keynote speech at the opening night of the virtual Democratic convention, accusing him of being the 'wrong president for our country' and 'clearly in over his head.'"

Former first lady Michelle Obama speaks during the first night of the Democratic National Convention. (photo: Democratic National Convention/AP)
Former first lady Michelle Obama speaks during the first night of the Democratic National Convention. (photo: Democratic National Convention/AP)


'It Is What It Is': Michelle Obama Picks Trump Apart in Gripping DNC Speech

By Joan E. Greve and Lauren Gamibino, Guardian UK

18 August 20


The former first lady sharply contrasted Joe Biden’s competency and character with that of the president

ichelle Obama eviscerated Donald Trump during her keynote speech at the opening night of the virtual Democratic convention, accusing him of being the “wrong president for our country” and “clearly in over his head”.

In her most political address and her most pointed criticism of Trump to date, the former first lady called on Americans to “vote for Joe Biden like our lives depend on it” in the November election.

“Let me be as honest and clear as I possibly can. Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country,” she said.

“He has had more than enough time to prove that he can do the job, but he is clearly in over his head. He cannot meet this moment. He simply cannot be who we need him to be for us. It is what it is.”

The phrase echoed Trump’s own words earlier this month, who, when asked about the United States’ staggering death toll from coronavirus, responded: “is what it is.”

Liberals, progressives, moderates and some Republicans came together at the virtual event on Monday night to warn of the threats four more years of a Trump administration pose, and promote visions for a better future.

In her address, Michelle Obama specifically referenced her words at the 2016 convention, in which she told Democrats: “When they go low, we go high.” Obama said tonight, “Going high is the only thing that works.”

She then added: “But let’s be clear: going high does not mean putting on a smile and saying nice things when confronted by viciousness and cruelty. Going high means taking the harder path. It means scraping and clawing our way to that mountain top.”

Nearly four years after leaving the White House, the former first lady remains hugely popular figure within the party, and among Black women in particular, as well as with some of those outside the party. 

In recent years, she published a best-selling memoir called Becoming, traveled the country on a book tour that was later made into a documentary, helped found a new voting rights organization, and recently launched a podcast.

“You know I hate politics,” she said in her speech, repeating a truism that has always disappointed her most ardent supporters, some of whom attempted to draft her into the 2020 primary race.

But it appeared to make her an even more powerful character witness, as she sharply contrasted Joe Biden’s personality record with Trump’s, calling the former vice-president, who served under her husband president Barack Obama, a “profoundly decent man” who will “tell the truth and trust science”.

“He knows what it takes to rescue an economy, beat back a pandemic and lead our country,” she said.

Trump succeeded Barack Obama in 2017 and promptly set out to undo many of Obama’s achievements on health care, the environment and foreign policy, among others. Trump also routinely criticizes Obama’s job performance.

Biden’s sense of empathy was also a key focus of Michelle Obama’s speech. Speaking of the national reckoning on racism sparked by the police killing of George Floyd in May, she said: “whenever we look to this White House for some leadership or consolation or any semblance of steadiness, what we get instead is chaos, division, and a total and utter lack of empathy”.

Tragedy has followed Biden, from the deaths of his first wife and baby daughter after he was elected to the Senate in 1972, to the death of his son Beau from brain cancer in 2015.

“His life is a testament to getting back up, and he is going to channel that same grit and passion to pick us all up, to help us heal and guide us forward,” she said of Biden.

A speech like that would typically be met with thunderous applause. But this year, praise was recorded online.

Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris praised Obama for “speaking truth to power” while Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called her remarks “incredibly powerful” and “deeply moving.”

“Because she is not a politician and doesn’t think or speak like one, @MicheleObama is such a powerful communicator,” tweeted David Axelrod, political consultant and former advisor to Barack Obama. “As she is showing again here, she speaks with a moral authority few in public life can summon.”

Michelle Obama, who leads an effort to help register people to vote, also spoke about the importance of voting in the 3 November election, which will take place amid a coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than 170,000 Americans and infected more than 5 million in the US. In the video, she wore a gold chain necklace that said “VOTE.”

Her remarks came as Democrats in Washington have also railed against recent cuts to the US Postal Service, which is headed by a Trump ally and Republican donor. The changes are delaying mail deliveries around the country, raising concerns about whether mail-in ballots will be sent out and returned on time ahead of the election.

Trump, who lags Biden in some national and state polls, has denounced efforts by some states to expand voting-by-mail options and spread misinformation to undermine the practice, which is seeing huge demand due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Due the coronavirus, Michelle Obama’s remarks were recorded before Biden’s announcement last Tuesday that he had chosen Harris as his running mate.

But the former first lady wrote lengthy posts on her Facebook and Instagram accounts praising Harris, a Black woman born to Jamaican and Indian parents, after she joined the Democratic ticket.

Monday’s speech was the fourth Democratic convention address by Michelle Obama, who first introduced herself to the nation during her husband’s groundbreaking campaign. She spoke again in 2012 to urge voters to give him a second term.

Michelle Obama returned to the convention stage in 2016, backing former first lady Hillary Clinton over Trump, who had spent years pushing the lie that Barack Obama was not born in the US and was ineligible for the presidency.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Is Trying to Put Us on War Footing With China. It's Up to the Left to Stop It. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55728"><span class="small">Tobita Chow and Jake Werner, In These Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 18 August 2020 09:05

Excerpt: "The Trump campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee formalized their sinophobic strategy in April."

A pro-China supporter holds a Chinese national flag during a rally. (photo: Kin Cheung/AP)
A pro-China supporter holds a Chinese national flag during a rally. (photo: Kin Cheung/AP)


Trump Is Trying to Put Us on War Footing With China. It's Up to the Left to Stop It.

By Tobita Chow and Jake Werner, In These Times

18 August 20

 

ec­re­tary of State Mike Pom­peo cast China’s rela­tion­ship with the Unit­ed States in apoc­a­lyp­tic terms dur­ing his speech at the Richard Nixon Pres­i­den­tial Library and Muse­um in Yor­ba Lin­da, Calif., in late July. “Secur­ing our free­doms from the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty is the mis­sion of our time,” Pom­peo warned. “If we bend the knee now, our children’s chil­dren may be at the mer­cy of the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Party.”

Nine days pri­or, Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump deliv­ered a ram­bling, near­ly hour-long address in the Rose Gar­den, claim­ing “Joe Biden’s entire career has been a gift to the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty. … And it’s been dev­as­tat­ing for the Amer­i­can work­er.” That same week, Peter Navar­ro, the president’s trade advis­er, went one step fur­ther by telling Fox News that Chi­na “hit us with that dead­ly virus, that weaponized virus.”

As Covid-19 rav­ages the Unit­ed States, the Trump White House and its Repub­li­can enablers are lever­ag­ing sino­pho­bia as their best chance to avoid an elec­toral blood­bath in Novem­ber. Act­ing in silent col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment (which itself is turn­ing toward nation­al­ism in the face of intense polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic pres­sures), they have plunged us into what some call a new Cold War.

The con­se­quences of this pow­er con­flict are already in evi­dence: a sharp rise in anti-Asian racism and forms of McCarthy­ism in the Unit­ed States, and grow­ing xeno­pho­bia and repres­sion in Chi­na. The con­flict is also deeply reshap­ing the Repub­li­can Par­ty; even if the 2020 elec­tion proves a dis­as­ter for the GOP, the con­sol­i­da­tion of right-wing nation­al­ism may offer the par­ty long-term polit­i­cal via­bil­i­ty. In a now zero-sum strug­gle for glob­al growth, it would be naïve to dis­miss the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a U.S.-China mil­i­tary con­fronta­tion erupting.

Biden and the Demo­c­ra­t­ic estab­lish­ment, mean­while, have cho­sen to attack Trump as insuf­fi­cient­ly hawk­ish. Pro­gres­sives and the Left, there­fore, must pro­vide an alter­na­tive path for­ward?—?one root­ed in glob­al sol­i­dar­i­ty and inter­na­tion­al coop­er­a­tion. Suc­cess in this endeav­or could defeat not only the coro­n­avirus but the scourges of cli­mate change and glob­al pover­ty. Fail­ure all but ensures a future rav­aged by dis­ease, envi­ron­men­tal break­down and nation­al­ist conflicts.

The Trump cam­paign and the Nation­al Repub­li­can Sen­a­to­r­i­al Com­mit­tee for­mal­ized their sino­pho­bic strat­e­gy in April. First, blame Chi­na for the pan­dem­ic, dein­dus­tri­al­iza­tion and the opi­oid cri­sis. Then, accuse Biden and oth­er Democ­rats of all but sur­ren­der­ing to Bei­jing. Plus, vow to restore U.S. man­u­fac­tur­ing while impos­ing sanc­tions on Chi­na, the biggest eco­nom­ic rival to the Unit­ed States. This dem­a­goguery has ener­gized the party’s base and direct­ed atten­tion away from Trump’s fail­ures, allow­ing the GOP to go on the offensive.

Anti-Chi­na mes­sag­ing, echoed in rightwing media, is all over the president’s 2020 cam­paign ads. Amer­i­ca First, a pro-Trump super PAC, has spent mil­lions of dol­lars in swing states to attack Biden as sup­port­ing China’s rise and for label­ing the White House’s Jan­u­ary trav­el ban as xeno­pho­bic. Ads call the for­mer vice pres­i­dent “Bei­jing Biden.” A spon­sored web­site claims the Biden family’s “cor­rupt ties to the Chi­nese elite raise seri­ous ques­tions about Biden’s ethics and the secre­tive motives for his weak stances on China.”

Sim­i­lar pos­tur­ing has per­me­at­ed the rhetoric of Repub­li­cans in the Sen­ate. One spot for Sen. Martha McSal­ly (R?Ariz.) accus­es Biden and McSally’s oppo­nent, Mark Kel­ly, of “sell­ing out to Chi­na.” One for Sen. Joni Ernst (R?Iowa) says,“We rely on Com­mu­nist Chi­na for far too much, from tech­nol­o­gy to med­i­cine. So I’m fight­ing to bring it home.”

This brand of sino­pho­bia, por­tray­ing the Demo­c­ra­t­ic agen­da as pro-Chi­na as much as pos­si­ble, has metas­ta­sized beyond dis­cus­sions of dein­dus­tri­al­iza­tion and the pan­dem­ic to include such pro­gres­sive pri­or­i­ties as cut­ting the bloat­ed U.S. mil­i­tary bud­get and tran­si­tion­ing to clean ener­gy. Trump even claimed the Paris cli­mate accord “would have crushed Amer­i­can man­u­fac­tur­ers while allow­ing Chi­na to pol­lute,” call­ing it “one more gift from Biden to the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Party.”

Sim­i­lar­ly, the Right has spu­ri­ous­ly attacked Black Lives Mat­ter as a Chi­nese plot. Lau­ra Ingra­ham of Fox News sug­gest­ed the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty (CCP) “has its hands in the riots and the cur­rent push to desta­bi­lize Amer­i­ca,” while Chad­wick Moore appeared on Tuck­er Carl­son Tonight to argue Chi­na is fund­ing the move­ment. Raheem Kas­sam, a col­lab­o­ra­tor of for­mer White House strate­gist Steve Ban­non, declared Black Lives Mat­ter is “lay­ing the ground­work” for a “CCP invasion.”

Con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries like these help but­tress the Right’s “blame Chi­na” nar­ra­tive. In an MSNBC inter­view in ear­ly July, Navar­ro claimed “the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty is respon­si­ble for every bad thing we’re expe­ri­enc­ing” while sug­gest­ing the coro­n­avirus is a “delib­er­ate” attack. Nation­al­ists also argue the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion is run by agents of the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment who col­lud­ed to ensure the virus spreads?—?a the­o­ry that ulti­mate­ly led Trump to with­draw the Unit­ed States from the orga­ni­za­tion, jeop­ar­diz­ing inter­na­tion­al efforts to con­tain the pandemic.

Beyond mere rhetoric, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is imple­ment­ing aggres­sive pol­i­cy that reshapes and inflames the U.S.-China rela­tion­ship. The White House has imposed tight restric­tions on Chi­nese jour­nal­ists in the Unit­ed States, declared an end to pref­er­en­tial eco­nom­ic treat­ment of Hong Kong and sanc­tioned Chi­nese offi­cials involved with the per­se­cu­tion of eth­nic Uighurs and oth­er Mus­lims in the Xin­jiang region. More recent­ly, the White House forced Chi­na to shut down its con­sulate in Hous­ton and float­ed plans to impose a trav­el ban on mem­bers of the CCP and their fam­i­lies, which could affect as many as 270 mil­lion peo­ple.

Per­haps most alarm­ing is the increase in U.S.-China mil­i­tary activ­i­ties. In the South Chi­na Sea, two U.S. Navy car­ri­er groups held exer­cis­es for the first time in more than a decade. This year’s Sen­ate debate over the U.S. mil­i­tary bud­get includ­ed mul­ti­ple com­pet­ing pro­pos­als to increase anti-Chi­na spend­ing by bil­lions of dol­lars. Mean­while, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion has threat­ened to engage Chi­na (and Rus­sia) in a new nuclear arms race, with head arms con­trol nego­tia­tor Mar­shall Billingslea promis­ing the Unit­ed States would spend its adver­saries “into oblivion.”

These actions have only suc­ceed­ed in antag­o­niz­ing the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment, whose anti-West­ern nation­al­ism increas­ing­ly mir­rors anti-Chi­na sen­ti­ment in the Unit­ed States. Fur­ther provo­ca­tions risk retal­i­a­tion that the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is like­ly to answer in kind, lock­ing the coun­tries in a feed­back loop of bel­liger­ence and brinks­man­ship. Esca­lat­ing pres­sure to pick a side threat­ens Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Chi­nese Amer­i­cans, and oth­ers caught in between. It also serves the Repub­li­can elec­toral strat­e­gy: As long as the U.S.-China con­flict deep­ens and remains in the head­lines, the GOP can dri­ve vot­ers and increase the pow­er of its xeno­pho­bic campaign.

This rise in sino­pho­bia is not just a cyn­i­cal ploy; it reflects a deep­er shift with­in the U.S. elite toward con­fronta­tion with Chi­na, dri­ven by mil­i­tarists and eco­nom­ic nation­al­ists who insist the Unit­ed States is locked in a zero-sum strug­gle with Chi­na for pow­er and glob­al growth.

Sur­round­ed by U.S. mil­i­tary bases and allies, Chi­na is attempt­ing to estab­lish itself as a region­al mil­i­tary pow­er, a devel­op­ment the U.S. secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment per­ceives as a threat to its dom­i­nant posi­tion in the Pacif­ic. The size and rapid growth of the Asia mar­ket “increas­ing­ly defines glob­al pow­er and com­merce,” argues promi­nent Asia pol­i­cy fig­ure Kurt Camp­bell, mak­ing U.S. pri­ma­cy essen­tial to “spur domes­tic revival and ren­o­va­tion [in the Unit­ed States] as well as to keep the peace in the world’s most dynam­ic region.”

Sen. Mar­co Rubio (R?Fla.)?—?in con­trast with Trump, whose trade war against Chi­na in 2018 led to a reces­sion in the U.S. man­u­fac­tur­ing sec­tor and a spike in farm bank­rupt­cies?—?offers a dif­fer­ent, more sophis­ti­cat­ed vision of anti-Chi­na eco­nom­ic nation­al­ism. The sen­a­tor con­tends that con­fronting Chi­na is key to improv­ing the sta­tus of U.S. work­ers, even as his pol­i­cy pro­pos­als care­ful­ly avoid min­i­mum wage increas­es or stronger labor rights. Instead, Rubio’s poli­cies fea­ture tax breaks, sub­si­dies and oth­er con­ven­tion­al­ly pro-busi­ness demands. For Rubio and his ilk, mak­ing U.S. man­u­fac­tur­ing more com­pet­i­tive with Chi­na requires an inten­si­fi­ca­tion of work­er exploita­tion, keep­ing costs low and prof­its high.

The white nation­al­ist fac­tion of the White House shares these broad­er aims while pur­su­ing more bla­tant­ly racist pol­i­cy. Led by Stephen Miller, the fac­tion has used the U.S.-China trade war to lob­by (unsuc­cess­ful­ly) for a total ban on Chi­nese inter­na­tion­al stu­dents, and is almost cer­tain­ly behind the pro­posed trav­el ban on CCP mem­bers and their families.

These cur­rents are push­ing the Repub­li­can Par­ty away from the free-mar­ket fun­da­men­tal­ism that defined it for decades, embold­en­ing Repub­li­cans to declare them­selves cham­pi­ons of so-called reg­u­lar peo­ple and the com­mon good. That these pol­i­tics are inher­ent­ly racist and exclu­sion­ary has not stopped some puta­tive­ly pro­gres­sive com­men­ta­tors from embrac­ing them. Matt Stoller, for exam­ple, author of Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monop­oly Pow­er and Democ­ra­cy, express­es admi­ra­tion for the eco­nom­ic nation­al­ism of Sens. Rubio, Josh Haw­ley (R?Mo.) and Tom Cot­ton (R?Ark.), along with Peter Navar­ro, U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Robert Lighthiz­er and Tuck­er Carl­son. In effect, Steve Ban­non is get­ting what he has want­ed for years: a par­ty for which “the eco­nom­ic war with Chi­na is every­thing” and can be used as a focus for its polit­i­cal realignment.

The worst-case sce­nario is that these trends con­verge to pro­duce a mil­i­tary con­fronta­tion with Chi­na, per­haps as an Octo­ber sur­prise aimed at chang­ing the dynam­ics of the pres­i­den­tial race. As The Nation ’s defense cor­re­spon­dent Michael Klare argues, the South Chi­na Sea is an espe­cial­ly dan­ger­ous locus of ten­sion, where “the U.S. mil­i­tary is pro­ceed­ing down an extreme­ly dan­ger­ous path, and one very like­ly to lead to mis­cal­cu­la­tion and war.” Shock­ing­ly, Rep. Ted Yoho (R?Fla.) pre­dict­ed as much in a July inter­view with the Wash­ing­ton Exam­in­er: “There will be a clash … peo­ple will die.”

epub­li­cans are not alone in pur­su­ing anti-Chi­na mes­sag­ing. For a num­ber of years, com­men­ta­tors from across the polit­i­cal spec­trum have argued the “Chi­na threat” could be used to uni­fy an increas­ing­ly unruly pop­u­la­tion. Of course, unit­ing the coun­try around a for­eign threat invari­ably invites big­otry — a real­i­ty that racist respons­es to the pan­dem­ic have thrown into stark relief. Sad­ly, this has not pre­vent­ed Democ­rats from push­ing their own ver­sion of sinophobia.

The Biden campaign’s ini­tial response to Trump’s attacks was to cut an unabashed­ly bel­liger­ent ad claim­ing he would have forced U.S. med­ical per­son­nel into Chi­na ear­ly in the out­break, dark­ly inton­ing the pres­i­dent “rolled over for the Chi­nese” by allow­ing 40,000 pos­si­bly infect­ed trav­el­ers into the Unit­ed States after impos­ing his trav­el ban.

A large num­ber of Asian Amer­i­can and pro­gres­sive groups harsh­ly crit­i­cized the ad, in an open let­ter to the Biden cam­paign, for “play­ing to right-wing nation­al­ism and fan­ning anti-Chi­na sen­ti­ment.” (Full dis­clo­sure: The authors of this arti­cle are sig­na­to­ries.) But Biden has made only cos­met­ic changes in the weeks and months since. After Trump’s Rose Gar­den speech in July, the Biden cam­paign issued talk­ing points reaf­firm­ing the con­ser­v­a­tive premise that Chi­na must be held account­able for the pandemic.

Although Democ­rats claim to oppose “the trap of a new Cold War,” in prac­tice they give promi­nence to inter­na­tion­al ten­sion rather than chart paths for coop­er­a­tion. This atti­tude risks entrench­ing sino­pho­bia as a defin­ing fea­ture of U.S. pol­i­tics, endan­ger­ing pro­gres­sive pri­or­i­ties by favor­ing so-called nation­al secu­ri­ty over, for exam­ple, action on cli­mate change and work­ers’ rights. Per­haps Demo­c­ra­t­ic oper­a­tives see their pos­tur­ing as doing lit­tle more than defus­ing a potent Repub­li­can talk­ing point, imag­in­ing that a Biden admin­is­tra­tion would safe­ly pur­sue a more mod­er­ate approach to Chi­na (as for­mer Pres­i­dents Bill Clin­ton and Barack Oba­ma did) after the elec­tion. Such assump­tions, how­ev­er, may prove ill-found­ed if the pub­lic begins to asso­ciate Chi­na not with low-cost exports and boot­leg DVDs but mass death and U.S. eco­nom­ic collapse.

Pri­or to the pan­dem­ic, Amer­i­cans were already under siege by abstract forces dif­fi­cult to grasp in their immen­si­ty. From work­force casu­al­iza­tion to the opi­oid epi­dem­ic, fears of scarci­ty to an acute sense of eco­nom­ic and cul­tur­al insta­bil­i­ty, mil­lions of Amer­i­cans were already feel­ing vul­ner­a­ble and con­fused. Anti-Chi­na Repub­li­cans prey on such feel­ings, giv­ing them a human face?—?a for­eign face?—?and offer­ing xeno­pho­bic vio­lence as a sub­sti­tute for gen­uine secu­ri­ty. Polling data indi­cates this mes­sage is tak­ing effect, with a rapid increase in pop­u­lar antipa­thy toward China.

If Democ­rats accept this basic anti-Chi­na propo­si­tion, they ulti­mate­ly risk los­ing their cur­rent elec­toral advan­tage. Stok­ing a fear of for­eign­ers strength­ens Trump’s hand, as his entire polit­i­cal iden­ti­ty is found­ed on xeno­pho­bia. If Trump’s best path to vic­to­ry this Novem­ber is to make the elec­tion about Chi­na, then Biden is blun­der­ing into a trap.

But even if the dis­as­trous Repub­li­can response to the pan­dem­ic secures a large 2020 vic­to­ry for Democ­rats, sino­pho­bia could reorder Amer­i­can pol­i­tics and embold­en the forces of reac­tion. A left-lib­er­al alliance has the chance to break Repub­li­can pow­er once and for all, end­ing a years-long paral­y­sis in U.S. pol­i­tics that has stymied any pro­gres­sive agen­da. If Democ­rats refuse to look beyond Novem­ber, how­ev­er, then they risk win­ning a bat­tle by ced­ing to the Repub­li­cans the ter­rain on which the war will be decided.

And in the process, Democ­rats risk a per­ma­nent break with Chi­na. Such a devel­op­ment would nour­ish anti-Asian racism in the U.S. and could trig­ger a fright­en­ing new era of mil­i­tarism, xeno­pho­bia and large-scale inter­na­tion­al vio­lence, extin­guish­ing pro­gres­sive momen­tum. What’s more, a new Cold War would ren­der impos­si­ble the nec­es­sary inter­na­tion­al coop­er­a­tion to con­tain future pan­demics and cli­mate change. Even if we were to some­how avoid a hot war, tens of mil­lions of peo­ple could become the col­lat­er­al dam­age of a pro­tract­ed conflict.

ro­gres­sives are ani­mat­ed by equal­i­ty and sol­i­dar­i­ty, essen­tial val­ues that could resolve this bur­geon­ing U.S.-China pow­er con­flict, yet the U.S. Left appears ill equipped for the task. For all the ground­break­ing domes­tic pol­i­cy ideas, the Left lacks a glob­al vision. Pro­gres­sives may reject nation­al­ism, but their think­ing has turned inward just as sure­ly as that of their right-wing counterparts.

Still, a left­ist analy­sis can help us under­stand the recent inten­si­fi­ca­tion of nation­al­ism. Where reac­tionar­ies view U.S.-China ten­sion as racial­ly or cul­tur­al­ly dri­ven and lib­er­als see it as a clash between democ­ra­cy and author­i­tar­i­an­ism, pro­gres­sives must under­stand that our glob­al sys­tem has pit­ted these two coun­tries against each other.

In the 1990s and 2000s, a neolib­er­al vision of free mar­kets, inte­gra­tion and cos­mopoli­tanism flour­ished in both coun­tries. The Unit­ed States and Chi­na com­ple­ment­ed one anoth­er in the glob­al econ­o­my; growth was achieved through coop­er­a­tion. Since the Great Reces­sion, how­ev­er, faith in this sys­tem has steadi­ly erod­ed amid slug­gish growth world­wide, fuel­ing nation­al­ist move­ments across con­ti­nents. Those nation­al­ist move­ments have, in turn, pushed pol­i­tics in a sharply author­i­tar­i­an direc­tion in not just the Unit­ed States and Chi­na, but India, Turkey and many oth­er coun­tries. It’s not just Chi­na that has set up con­cen­tra­tion camps to iso­late those con­sid­ered for­eign and dan­ger­ous?—?the Unit­ed States has its bor­der camps and the Euro­pean Union its refugee deten­tion sites.

Since the 2008 eco­nom­ic cri­sis, Chi­nese lead­er­ship has accel­er­at­ed its devel­op­ment strat­e­gy, aimed at end­ing China’s eco­nom­ic sub­or­di­na­tion to the West. Chi­na increas­ing­ly threat­ens the dom­i­nance of Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions in such high-val­ue sec­tors as robot­ics, arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence and biotech­nol­o­gy, even as the Unit­ed States becomes depen­dent on those sec­tors to sus­tain its own eco­nom­ic growth.

If these nations find them­selves on a col­li­sion course, nei­ther hom­i­lies about world peace nor promis­es to return to a bygone era are like­ly to alter their tra­jec­to­ries. The source of this con­flict is not racial, cul­tur­al or even polit­i­cal. It is the prod­uct of an increas­ing­ly dys­func­tion­al glob­al econ­o­my, and only by expos­ing this sys­tem can we find a way for both sides?—?along with the rest of the world?—?to sur­vive and flourish.

What is the role of the Left in achiev­ing such a transformation?

First, we must ensure the defeat of Trump and the GOP in Novem­ber. While sino­pho­bia is now com­mon in both par­ties, the Repub­li­can ver­sion is unequiv­o­cal­ly more con­spir­a­to­r­i­al, des­per­ate and volatile. A Biden admin­is­tra­tion would not cre­ate an alter­na­tive to the new Cold War of its own accord, but it would pro­ceed more cau­tious­ly and be more recep­tive to pres­sure from pro­gres­sives?—?if pro­gres­sives mar­shal the req­ui­site sup­port with­in the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Party.

The Left must offer a clear and com­pelling alter­na­tive to the grow­ing U.S.-China con­flict and a path beyond the decay­ing glob­al neolib­er­al order. In the short term, this path includes inter­na­tion­al coor­di­na­tion to com­bat the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic; doing so has the poten­tial to counter anti-Chi­na sen­ti­ment among vot­ers, accord­ing to a Morn­ing Consult/ Politico poll from May. When asked to choose between work­ing with Chi­na to defeat the virus or hold­ing Chi­na account­able for its role in the pan­dem­ic, par­tic­i­pants favored coop­er­a­tion over con­fronta­tion by a 28-point margin.

Beyond the cur­rent cri­sis, we must demand the Unit­ed States part­ner with Chi­na (and all oth­er coun­tries) to end cli­mate change and glob­al inequal­i­ty through coor­di­nat­ed, pub­lic invest­ment, and by strength­en­ing the pow­er of labor around the world. Such an agen­da could restruc­ture glob­al growth, dis­man­tling the U.S.-China con­flict at its source.

At the same time, pro­gres­sives must affirm the rights of those threat­ened by the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment?—?the Mus­lims of Xin­jiang, Hong Kong pro­test­ers, jour­nal­ists and oth­ers. The U.S. Left has, so far, allowed the Right to lead on these issues, which is not just a betray­al of our prin­ci­ples but a strate­gic error. We must make the case that a more coop­er­a­tive, less antag­o­nis­tic stance toward Chi­na may, in fact, open up more space to pres­sure the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment. As for­mer Oba­ma advis­er Ryan Hass and oth­ers have argued, the U.S.-China rela­tion­ship has become so adver­sar­i­al that Chi­na sees no ben­e­fit in yield­ing to U.S. demands.

Strength­en­ing democ­ra­cy in Chi­na and beyond will not be achieved through direct attacks on the CCP’s author­i­tar­i­an­ism, espe­cial­ly when the Unit­ed States has ignored (if not active­ly sup­port­ed) sim­i­lar abus­es from Brazil to India and Sau­di Ara­bia. Instead, we must build a move­ment of transna­tion­al sol­i­dar­i­ty to neu­tral­ize the nation­al­ism and author­i­tar­i­an­ism unleashed by our glob­al eco­nom­ic sys­tem. Only then can we begin the dif­fi­cult work of forg­ing a bet­ter world.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bill Barr Injures Back While Trying to Lift Mailbox Into Truck Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Monday, 17 August 2020 13:40

Borowitz writes: "Attorney General William Barr suffered what was described as a 'severe back strain' while trying to lift a mailbox into a pickup truck on Saturday."

Bill Barr. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Bill Barr. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Bill Barr Injures Back While Trying to Lift Mailbox Into Truck

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

17 August 20

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


ttorney General William Barr suffered what was described as a “severe back strain” while trying to lift a mailbox into a pickup truck on Saturday.

According to Barr, he tried to give the mailbox “one good yank” to heave it into the truck, when he heard “something go pop” in his back.

“I remember thinking, Hoo, boy, that’s not good,” Barr said.

At the White House, Donald J. Trump said that the injury to Barr was “disgraceful” and yet another argument against mail-in voting.

“How can we expect the Postal Service to run a fair election when a mailbox almost killed poor Bill Barr?” he asked. “It’s something we’re going to be looking into very strongly.”

As for Barr, who is recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Attorney General acknowledged that lifting mailboxes was “probably a two-man job,” and said that next time he would get Mike Pence to help.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Even Trump's Most Die-Hard Minions Struggle to Defend Him Anymore Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55724"><span class="small">James Downie, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Monday, 17 August 2020 13:40

Downie writes: "President Trump has always struggled to avoid saying the quiet part out loud."

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows during a briefing at the White House on July 31. (photo: Jabin Botsford/WP)
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows during a briefing at the White House on July 31. (photo: Jabin Botsford/WP)


Even Trump's Most Die-Hard Minions Struggle to Defend Him Anymore

By James Downie, The Washington Post

17 August 20

 

resident Trump has always struggled to avoid saying the quiet part out loud. From lauding “very fine people on both sides” in the Charlottesville clash between white nationalists and counterprotesters in 2017 to admitting that he fired FBI Director James B. Comey over “this Russia thing,” Trump again and again has left his staff scrambling to explain that the president didn’t really mean what he said, that the media set him up or (when all else fails) that he was just “joking.” 

One might have expected the pattern to change, though, given that his White House and campaign staffs are more uniformly right-wing die-hards than ever, including White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who used to chair the tea party-sympathetic Freedom Caucus in the House, and new campaign adviser Steve Cortes, who thinks Trump’s response to Black Lives Matter should have been more “fascist.” But on the Sunday talk shows, these would-be rhetorical bomb-throwers have found themselves stuck defusing just as many land mines as their predecessors.

One walkback involved Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.). On Thursday, Trump falsely suggested that she “doesn’t meet the requirements” to be vice president, referring to a widely denounced op-ed that argued that the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants might not be a citizen by birth. In a news conference Saturday, Trump tried a partial walkback by saying his campaign wouldn’t be “pursuing” the issue, but still declined to state Harris was eligible.

On Sunday, White House representatives blamed the media for the controversy. “Y’all have spent more time on it than anybody in the White House has talking about this,” Meadows told CNN. Cortes insisted on “Fox News Sunday” that “members of the media … are trying to create a controversy that simply doesn’t exist.” But unlike Trump, when asked whether Harris was eligible to be vice president, both simply — and correctly — responded, “Yes.”

The other walkback involved the president’s breathtaking admission that he was opposing an emergency bailout for the U.S. Postal Service to keep millions of Americans from being able to vote by mail in the fall. Rather than blame the media in this instance, Meadows and Cortes tried to change the president’s meaning. “The president doesn’t have a problem with anybody voting by mail, if you would look at it in terms of maybe a no-excuse absentee ballot,” Meadows said. “What he opposes is universal mail-in ballots, where you send millions of ballots out to registered voters across the country, even those that don’t request it.” Cortes likewise said on Fox News, “We believe in absentee voting, we believe in early voting.” Both insisted a universal mail-in system would be, in Meadows’s words, “asking for a disaster.”

There are two glaring problems here: First, Trump’s opposition to a USPS bailout endangers absentee voting as well. Second, there’s no evidence that universal mail-in systems are susceptible to fraud. Five states — Oregon, Utah, Washington, Colorado and Hawaii — already vote largely or almost entirely by mail, without problems. Indeed, when CNN’s Jake Tapper noted that “there’s no evidence of widespread voter fraud,” Meadows could respond only, “There’s no evidence that there’s not either. That’s the definition of fraud, Jake.”

Again, this latest instance of Trump embarrassing himself and his staff scrambling to cover for him is only remarkable in the sense of who’s doing the covering. No longer are there any party veterans such as Reince Priebus or Sean Spicer to take the fall. Nor are there establishment hands such as John Kelly to take the blame. As my colleague Dana Milbank pointed out, “Under Meadows, Trump seems to have no guardrails.” And yet what Meadows and others have found out is now that they’re in positions of responsibility, Trump is still Trump and still a walking disaster. The band members are different, but the song remains the same. And judging from the president’s poll numbers, Americans don’t like the performance any better.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 Next > End >>

Page 386 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN