Photo by Molly |
I love Chelan Harkin |
Holding a vision of a world that works for all..... "Let yourself be silently drawn by the stronger pull of what you really love." ~ Rumi
Photo by Molly |
I love Chelan Harkin |
Thank you, George Monbiot! This is such a truly excellent and compelling piece from someone who I have held with the highest respect and gratitude for decades. George is so right on in his illuminating the catastrophic impact of 45 years of neoliberalism ― a poisonous and powerful system that has overtaken all of the Republican Party and most in the Democratic Party. We would not be sitting at the precipice that we are today if that weren't true. And his summary of the extreme dangers of another Trump presidency are absolutely spot on. May we listen! Literally, everything that we love and cherish is at stake. And, as a mother and a grandmother of six grandchildren aged 9 months to 9 years ― and as someone who cares passionately for all life on Earth ― I am compelled to do everything humanly possible to stop the fascist takeover of our country, the devastating implications of which would be felt worldwide. ― Molly
____________
"Men like Trump, damaged, frightened, pathologically insecure, resistant to love and therapy, can relieve their pain only by inflicting pain on others. Compassion is a foreign concept to him. There is no curiosity, no wonder, no kindness, no connection with the hearts of others, no lightness of spirit. In their place are ego, rage, resentment, impulsiveness and cruelty. Those who are not at peace with themselves destroy other people’s peace." ― George Monbiot
Illustration: Nate Kitch/The Guardian |
Dear US voters, in the spirit in which I would beg a dear friend not to get a facial tattoo, I’m writing to ask you not to vote for Donald Trump. While the decision to do so would make a statement, signalling your justifiable anger about the pain you have suffered, it is likely to disfigure you, damage your life chances and prove irreversible. In the wake of his rally at Madison Square Garden, no one can now doubt what he intends to do to you.
I can guess where you think I’m coming from, but I have no love for the Democrats. Unlike the UK Labour party staffers campaigning for Kamala Harris, I have no affiliations. While there have been some improvements under Joe Biden, for decades, regardless of which party was in power, the value generated by the middle and working classes has been mopped up by the very rich. This is the result of 45 years of neoliberalism, a life-sapping programme to which both parties subscribe. I share the horror and disgust many of you feel towards Biden’s foreign policy, especially his support for the Israeli government while it pursues its genocidal onslaught in Gaza and invasion of Lebanon.
But all these things would be worse under Trump. Of Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said last week, “he’s doing a good job” but “Biden is trying to hold him back … and he probably should be doing the opposite, actually”. Earlier this year, he said of the Israeli government, “They’ve got to finish what they started.” If, as Trump allegedly threatened, he “will not give a penny” to Ukraine in aid, Vladimir Putin could do to Ukraine what Netanyahu has done to Gaza. Any prospect of peace on either front would shift from improbable to impossible.
For all their faults, at least Biden and Harris seek, however unevenly, to shield the people of the United States from the worst aspects of capitalism. But Trump is the worst aspects of capitalism, condensed into human form: the greed, the lies, the rip-offs. While he remains vague on the detail, a collection of rightwing goons, under the aegis of Project 2025, have laid out the road he will most likely follow. During his first presidency, Trump attempted, but thankfully failed, to destroy the Affordable Care Act. If he wins again, he will fail less often. His team will rip down the threadbare public protections for the middle and working classes. Trump’s plans would hasten the insolvency of social security and Medicare. He will gut the government, replacing experienced officials with loyalists. Head Start, which provides childcare and preschool education, offering at least a prospect of opportunity for all, will be erased: if you are born poor, you will be even more likely to remain poor.
Never underestimate the vengeful nihilism at the heart of this movement. The glitter-eyed fanatics behind Project 2025 and other such programmes will smash whatever is most precious to you, partly at the behest of commercial interests – but also to enjoy watching the pain it inflicts. They will crush beauty, joy, community and hope precisely because other people value them.
Even if, in 2028, Trump or his designated successor somehow permits a change of government, which seems unlikely, some of the impacts of another single term will be irrevocable, particularly as his team attacks the living world.
His climate policies will rush us even faster towards the Earth systems horizon. There will be no recovery of the beautiful wild places he will hand to fossil fuel extractors, to mining and ranching companies, to construction firms. When catastrophes strike, he will not be there for you. During his first term, Trump, a modern-day Nero, withheld disaster aid from states he deemed insufficiently loyal to him. His callous and chaotic response to the Covid-19 pandemic helped cause the death of 350,000 Americans in 2020. Contrast this, for instance, to Taiwan, whose highly effective policies ensured that only seven lives were lost that year. This is the iron rule: Trump serves only himself.
Some of you might gain from a new Trump presidency, but only at the expense of others. His is, and has always been, a zero-sum game. His friends may rise, but only as his enemies fall. And the nature of the enemy will constantly evolve.
Already, you can see the net widening. Trump has made it clear that people who don’t originate from “nice countries” – he listed Denmark, Switzerland and Norway – are “poisoning the blood” of the US. Your blood, in his worldview, becomes no less “poisonous” over time. Already, he has lined up Jews as the scapegoats if he loses the election, a gambit as old as the hills.
Perhaps you are white and Christian. But you might discover, some years down the line, that you are the wrong kind of white, or the wrong kind of Christian. Gay? Disabled? Long-term sick? It may not be long before you too are “poisoning the blood” of the country. As his capture of the judiciary advances, women will be reduced once more to second-class citizens whose primary purpose is to serve men. Who is the “your” in “I am your retribution”? Trump is careful never to spell it out. But of one thing you can be sure: the answer will keep changing.
It is not hard to see the militias supporting Trump mutating into death squads if he wins, protected by sympathetic police, a tame judiciary and presidential pardons. If so, they would be used to instil terror into his opponents. Every outrage will blunt the edge of the next one, until you are so inured to outrage that you have no remaining capacity to respond. And as Trump is now empowered by almost full-spectrum immunity, there will be nothing anyone can do to stop him.
The rest of the establishment and the less extreme media, the professions, government officials and legislators – will they seek to protect you? Most will fall into line, out of fear and favour, the two forces to which almost everyone in public life succumbs. This is how it works, and has always worked.
Men like Trump, damaged, frightened, pathologically insecure, resistant to love and therapy, can relieve their pain only by inflicting pain on others. Compassion is a foreign concept to him. There is no curiosity, no wonder, no kindness, no connection with the hearts of others, no lightness of spirit. In their place are ego, rage, resentment, impulsiveness and cruelty. Those who are not at peace with themselves destroy other people’s peace.
We need to build a world in which one can gain without another losing, a world in which kindness, decency and community prevail, where the fortunate help the less fortunate to avoid disaster. The Democrats will deliver less of this than they should. But Trump will make everything worse. Please, dear friends. Don’t do it to yourselves.
George Monbiot is a Guardian columist
I agree with Norman Solomon regarding this excellent article ― it is a very astute analysis about the dangerous folly of Jill Stein. ― Molly
The historical record lends little support to the claim that when Democrats’ campaigns are sunk by a small leftwing party, the party moves left.
Some people on the left make the following argument: we need to vote for a third party in this election, even or especially in swing states, as a way to punish the Democrats for their support for the genocide in Gaza. Only if the Democrats lose the election because of Arab-Muslim-leftist votes will they come to take seriously the concerns of the pro-Palestine movement.
There are, I think, five problems with this argument.
First, one should note the rather inconsistent left support for this argument among Stein voters. Some Stein voters, including Stein herself, go to great pains to argue that the Greens didn’t cost Gore the election in 2000 or Clinton the election in 2016, and that a vote for the Greens will not lead to Trump’s victory in 2024. For example, Howie Hawkins, who was the Green candidate for president in 2020, wrote the following in endorsing Stein this time around: “The risk that Stein votes will ‘spoil’ the election for Biden and elect Trump exists, but is very low.” But other Stein supporters, such as Kshama Sawant, celebrate the fact that we “have a real opportunity to win something historic. We could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan.” It will be interesting if Stein garners more votes than Trump’s margin in Michigan to watch Sawant cheering and Hawkins insisting her campaign didn’t have an effect.
Second, if one takes the “punish the Democrats” argument to its logical conclusion, then one should not only refrain from voting for Harris, but one should actually vote for Trump. After all, each vote for Trump would be twice as effective as a vote for Stein in achieving the goal of causing the Democrats to lose the White House. Now among some Arab Americans and a smaller number of Muslim Americans there is indeed support for voting for Trump, but many of these folks are not progressives. For example, the Muslim mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan, a city with an entirely Muslim city council, endorsed Trump, but he and the city council also supported an ordinance banning the flying of an LGBTQ+ flag on city property. But why do progressives balk at voting for Trump, given the logic of their argument?
Is it because they find it morally unacceptable to cast a vote for someone who is more supportive of Israel’s genocide than Harris? (Recall that Trump condemned the Biden administration for its microscopically positive suspension of a U.S. arms shipment to Israel, denounced Harris’s comments to Netanyahu expressing concern for Gaza civilians as “disrespectful,” charged that “Harris has worked to tie Israel’s hand behind its back, demanding an immediate ceasefire, always demanding ceasefire,” accused Biden of “trying to hold [Netanyahu] back” when “he probably should be doing the opposite actually,” and, when Biden discouraged Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites and oil facilities, urged Israel to “hit the nuclear first.”) But morality is not a matter of insisting on personal cleanliness. If it is morally wrong to vote for the greater genocidalist, how can it be right to enable the election of the greater genocidalist?
Is the reason to vote for Stein rather than Trump because a large Stein vote will quantify the protest vote? But if driving up the Green party total is the key, then Stein would have been well advised to spend her time campaigning in safe states where there is no spoiler issue.
A third problem with the punish the Democrats argument is that if the Democrats did feel chastened after losing the 2024 election, what would this mean for Palestine? What would be left of Palestine after four years of Trump’s presidency? What restraints would he impose on Israel? In his last term in office, Trump declared the Israeli settlements to be legal (reversing longstanding US policy, and reversed again by Biden in February 2024), moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and recognized the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. Now, Itamar Ben Gvir – Israel’s literally fascist minister of national security, who has publicly endorsed Trump – wants to extend the Nakba to Gaza and the West Bank, annexing much of what remains. Trump, like Israel’s leaders, rejects the notion of two states. So, if there are elections in 2028 and if the Democrats are able to win after all the voter suppression that Trump’s even more supine Supreme Court allows, would the victorious Democrats who now wanted to take seriously the views of Arab and Muslim voters find any Palestinians left to save?
The fourth problem with the punish the Democrats argument is that it assumes that the lesson of Harris’s loss will be self-evident. For example, Peter Daou, sometime campaign manager for Marianne Williamson and Cornel West, declared on social media: “If Kamala Harris loses, I will celebrate. I will celebrate a moment for justice for her Palestinian and Lebanese victims. I will celebrate the humiliating defeat of a genocider and the message it sends the world. Then I’ll oppose Trump as vigorously as I did in his first term.”
But why is Daou so sure that the message that the world will take from Trump’s victory won’t be that a genocider was beaten by a bigger genocider? That someone who ineffectually called for a ceasefire was beaten by someone who opposed calls for a ceasefire? (One also wonders at Daou’s confidence that he will be able to oppose Trump as vigorously as he did in his first term in the face of government repression with far fewer guardrails.)
The fifth problem is that there is no guarantee that a Trump victory will propel the Democrats to take the Arab-Muslim vote seriously. If a few percent of lost votes on their left causes the Democrats to lose the election, they have two options: they could move left to try to pick up additional votes, but at the risk of losing more votes in the center, or they could move even further to the center hoping there are more votes there than on the left. The left is a marginal force in American politics – big enough to affect the result in an evenly divided electorate, but not nearly big enough to compete head on with centrist forces. As long as this is the case, a strategy of torpedoing the Democrats is likely to make the left more irrelevant rather than less so. And if Trump wins, and decides to go forward with his pledge to expand the Muslim ban and bar Gaza refugees, will the Democrats come rushing to the aid of those who they believe cost them the White House?
The historical record lends little support to the claim that when Democrats’ campaigns are sunk by a small leftwing party, the party moves left. On the contrary, the left is vilified, assigning it exclusive blame for the loss that was much more a consequence of Democratic failings. After the narrow 2000 Gore defeat, the Democrats chose a 2004 nominee who had supported the Iraq war (John Kerry). And following the 2016 debacle, the Democrats didn’t turn to Sanders, but to Biden
Biden administration policies on Gaza are vile. Given the level of U.S. support for Israel’s crimes, top officials in the administration are complicit in war crimes, and thus war criminals themselves. But it is not the left’s task to carry out retribution. Our goal has to be to try to accomplish the realistic outcome that will minimize human suffering and maximize the chances of future progress. In 2024 that means casting a vote for Harris in swing states to keep out a candidate who is and will be an even greater war criminal.
Please go here for the original article: https://www.laprogressive.com/election-and-campaigns/punishing-democrats
By Norman Solomon
The conclusion that Donald Trump is a fascist has gone mainstream, gaining wide publicity and affirmation in recent weeks. Such understanding is a problem for Trump and his boosters. At the same time, potentially pivotal in this close election, a small proportion of people who consider themselves to be progressive still assert that any differences between Trump and Kamala Harris are not significant enough to vote for Harris in swing states.
Opposition to fascism has long been a guiding light in movements against racism and for social justice.
Speaking to a conference of the African National Congress in 1951, Nelson Mandela warned that “South African capitalism has developed [into] monopolism and is now reaching the final stage of monopoly capitalism gone mad, namely, fascism.”
Before Fred Hampton was murdered by local police officers colluding with the FBI in 1969, the visionary young Illinois Black Panther Party leader said: “Nothing is more important than stopping fascism, because fascism will stop us all.”
Do we want to be organizing against a fascistic militaristic President Trump, with no realistic hope of changing policies . . . or against a neoliberal militaristic President Harris, with the possibility of changing policies?
But now, for some who lay claim to being on the left, stopping fascism is not a priority. Disconnected from the magnitude of this fateful moment, the danger of a fascist president leading a fanatical movement becomes an abstraction.
One cogent critic of capitalism ended a column in mid-October this way: “Pick your poison. Destruction by corporate power or destruction by oligarchy. The end result is the same. That is what the two ruling parties offer in November. Nothing else.”
The difference between a woman’s right to an abortion vs. abortion being illegal is nothing?
“The end result is the same”—so it shouldn’t matter to us whether Trump becomes president after campaigning with a continuous barrage against immigrants, calling them “vermin,” “stone-cold killers,” and “animals,” while warning against the “bad genes” of immigrants who aren’t white, and raising bigoted alarms about immigration of “blood thirty criminals” who “prey upon innocent American citizens” and will “cut your throat”?
If “the end result is the same,” a mish-mash of ideology and fatalism can ignore the foreseeable results of a Republican Party gaining control of the federal government with a 2024 platform that pledges to “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.” Or getting a second Trump term after the first one allowed him to put three right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court.
Will the end result be the same if Trump fulfills his apparent threat to deploy the U.S. military against his political opponents, whom he describes as “radical left lunatics” and “the enemy from within”?
Capacities to protect civil liberties matter. So do savage Republican cuts in programs for minimal health care, nutrition and other vital aspects of a frayed social safety net. But those cuts are less likely to matter to the polemicists who will not experience the institutionalized cruelties firsthand.
Rather than being for personal absolution, voting is a tool in the political toolbox—if the goal is to avert the worst and improve the chances for constructing a future worthy of humanity.
Trump has pledged to be even more directly complicit in Israel’s mass murder of Palestinian people in Gaza than President Biden has been. No wonder, as the Washington Postreports, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “has shown a clear preference for Trump in this election.” During a call this month, Trump told Netanyahu: “Do what you have to do.”
Palestinians, Muslim leaders and other activists in the swing state of Arizona issued an open letter days ago that makes a case for defeating Trump. “We know that many in our communities are resistant to vote for Kamala Harris because of the Biden administration’s complicity in the genocide,” the letter says. “We understand this sentiment. Many of us have felt that way ourselves, even until very recently. Some of us have lost many family members in Gaza and Lebanon. We respect those who feel they simply can’t vote for a member of the administration that sent the bombs that may have killed their loved ones.”
The letter goes on:
As we consider the full situation carefully, however, we conclude that voting for Kamala Harris is the best option for the Palestinian cause and all of our communities. We know that some will strongly disagree. We only ask that you consider our case with an open mind and heart, respecting that we are doing what we believe is right in an awful situation where only flawed choices are available.
In our view, it is crystal clear that allowing the fascist Donald Trump to become President again would be the worst possible outcome for the Palestinian people. A Trump win would be an extreme danger to Muslims in our country, all immigrants, and the American pro-Palestine movement. It would be an existential threat to our democracy and our whole planet.
Exercising conscience in the most humane sense isn’t about feeling personal virtue. It’s about concern for impacts on the well-being of other people. It’s about collective solidarity.
The consequences of declining to help stop fascism are not confined to the individual voter. In the process, vast numbers of people can pay the price for individuals’ self-focused concept of conscience.
Last week, an insightful Common Dreams column—entitled “7 Strategic Axioms for the Anxious Progressive Voter”—offered a forward-looking way to put this presidential election in a future context: “Vote for the candidate you want to organize against!”
Do we want to be organizing against a fascistic militaristic President Trump, with no realistic hope of changing policies . . . or against a neoliberal militaristic President Harris, with the possibility of changing policies?
For progressives, the answer should be clear.
Please go here for the original article: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/fascism-trump-2024