The Rag Blog

Harry Targ : From the Bay of Pigs to the Missile Crisis / 3

Posted on October 17, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Front page of New York Daily News, October 23, 1962. From the Mitchell Archives.
The Cuba story, Part 3:
The Bay of Pigs to the missile crisis

The Cuban missile crisis suggests that the United States would go to any extreme, even nuclear war, to defend the interests of capitalism.

By Harry Targ | The Rag Blog | October 17, 2012

“In the missile crisis the Kennedys played their dangerous game skillfully… But all their skill would have been to no avail if in the end Khrushchev had preferred his prestige, as they preferred theirs, to the danger of a world war. In this respect we are all indebted to Khrushchev.” (I.F. Stone,“What If Khrushchev Hadn’t Backed Down?” in In a Time of Torment, Vintage, 1967)

[Part three of three.]

The Kennedy Administration goes to the brink of nuclear war

The period between the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the announcement of the Alliance for Progress economic assistance program, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was one of escalating hostilities. Fidel Castro declared Cuba a Socialist state. The United States pressured members of the Organization of American States (OAS) to expel Cuba.

The CIA began campaigns to assassinate the Cuban leader and President Kennedy initiated the complete economic blockade that exists until today. In addition, Castro warned that the U.S. was continuing to plan for another invasion. The Soviet Union began providing more economic and military support to the Cubans, including anti-aircraft missiles and jet aircraft.

In October 1962, U.S. spy planes sighted the construction of Soviet surface-to-air missile installations and the presence of Soviet medium-range bombers on Cuban soil. These sightings were made after Republican leaders had begun to attack Kennedy for allowing a Soviet military presence on the island. Kennedy had warned the Soviets in September not to install “offensive” military capabilities in Cuba. Photos indicated that the Soviets had also begun to build ground-to-ground missile installations on the island, which Kennedy defined as “offensive” and a threat to national security.

After securing the photographs Kennedy assembled a special team of advisors, known as EXCOM, to discuss various responses the United States might make. He excluded any strategy that prioritized taking the issue to the United Nations for resolution.

After much deliberation EXCOM focused on two policy responses: a strategic air strike against Soviet targets in Cuba or a blockade of incoming Soviet ships coupled with threats of further action if the Soviet missiles were not withdrawn. Both options had a high probability of escalating to nuclear war if the Soviet Union refused to back down.

High drama, much of it televised, followed the initiation of a naval blockade of Soviet ships heading across the Atlantic to Cuba. Fortunately, the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, sent notes to the President that led to a tacit agreement between the two leaders whereby Soviet missiles would be withdrawn from Cuba and the United States would promise not to invade Cuba to overthrow the Castro government. In addition, the President indicated that obsolete U.S. missiles in Turkey would be disassembled over time.

Most scholars argue that the missile crisis constituted Kennedy’s finest hour as statesman and diplomat. They agree with the administration view that the missiles constituted a threat to U.S. security, despite Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s claim in EXCOM meetings that the missiles did not change the strategic balance between the United States and the Soviet Union. Most of these scholars have agreed that the symbolic value of the installation of Soviet missiles could have had grave consequences for U.S. “credibility.”

Given the importance of the missiles, leading social scientists have written that the Kennedy team carefully considered a multitude of policy responses. EXCOM did not ignore competing analyses, as had been done in the decisional process prior to the Bay of Pigs. The blockade policy that was adopted, experts believe, constituted a rational application of force that it was hoped would lead to de-escalation of tensions. All observers agreed that the United States and the Soviet Union had gone to the brink of nuclear war. Even the President estimated that there was a 50 percent probability of full-scale nuclear war.

In the end the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Analysts said the Soviet Union suffered a propaganda defeat for putting the missiles on Cuban soil in the first place and then withdrawing them after U.S. threats. Khrushchev was criticized by the Chinese government and within a year he was ousted from leadership in the Soviet Union.

In the light of this U.S. “victory,” Kennedy has been defined as courageous and rational. The real meaning of the Cuban Missile Crisis, however, is different, even 50 years after the event. The crisis actually suggests that the United States quest to maintain and enhance its empire would lead it to go to any extreme, even nuclear war, to defend the interests of capitalism. To avoid serious losses, whether symbolic or material, for capitalism, any policy was justified.

Further, in terms of U.S. politics, Kennedy was calculating the effects of the missiles on the chances for his party to retain control of Congress in 1962. A second “defeat” over Cuba (the Bay of Pigs was the first) would have heightened the opposition’s criticisms of his foreign policy.

Finally, in personal terms, Kennedy was driven by the need to establish a public image as courageous and powerful in confronting the Soviets. Khrushchev had spoken harshly to him at a summit meeting in Vienna in 1961 and Castro had been victorious at the Bay of Pigs. The President’s own “credibility” had been damaged and a show of force in October 1962, was necessary for his career.

Because of imperialism, politics, and personal political fortunes, the world almost went to nuclear war 50 years ago. As I.F. Stone suggested shortly after the crisis, nuclear war was avoided because the Soviet Union chose to withdraw from the tense conflict rather than to engage in it further.

National Security Archives files referred to in an earlier blog suggest, “the historical record shows that the decisions leading to the crisis which almost brought nuclear war have been repeated over and over again since the early 1960s.” The danger of the unabashed and irresponsible use of force and the legitimation of the idea that diplomacy can be conducted using nuclear weapons and other devastating weapons systems still represents a threat to human survival.

This is the third of three articles that address U.S./Cuban relations that culminated in a crisis over Cuba that almost led to nuclear war. These essays are adapted from my book, Strategy of an Empire in Decline: Cold War II, 1986.

[Harry Targ is a professor of political science at Purdue University who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical — and that’s also the name of his book from Changemaker Press which can be found at Lulu.com. Read more of Harry Targ’s articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged Bay of Pigs, Cold War, Cuba, Cuban Missile Crisis, Cuban Revolution, Harry Targ, Imperialism, JFK, Latin America, Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet Union, U.S. Foreign Policy, Western Hemisphere | Leave a comment

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman : Will E-Voting Machines in Ohio Give Romney the Election?

Posted on October 16, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Political cartoon by Dan Wasserman / Boston Globe
Will Ohio’s H.I.G.-owned e-voting machines
give Romney the White House?

The widespread use of electronic voting machines from ES&S, and of Diebold software maintained by Triad, allowed Blackwell to electronically flip a 4% Kerry lead to a 2% Bush victory in the dead of election night.

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman | The Rag Blog | October 16, 2012

See Thorne Dreyer’s interview with journalist Harvey Wasserman and author Tova Andrea Wang about voter suppression and voter theft — including issues discussed in this article — at The Rag Blog, and listen to the Rag Radio podcast.

Electronic voting machines owned by Mitt Romney’s business buddies and set to count the votes in Cincinnati could decide the 2012 election.

The narrative is already being hyped by the corporate media. As Kelly O’Donnell reported for NBC’s Today Show on Monday, October 8, Ohio’s Hamilton County is “ground zero” for deciding who holds the White House come January 2013.

O’Donnell pointed out that no candidate has won the White House without carrying Ohio since John Kennedy did it in 1960. No Republican has EVER won the White House without Ohio’s electoral votes.

As we document in the e-book Will the GOP Steal America’s 2012 Election?, George W. Bush got a second term in 2004 thanks to the manipulation of the electronic vote count by Ohio’s then-Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell served as the co-chair of the state’s committee to re-elect Bush/Cheney while simultaneously administering the election.

The widespread use of electronic voting machines from ES&S, and of Diebold software maintained by Triad, allowed Blackwell to electronically flip a 4% Kerry lead to a 2% Bush victory in the dead of election night. ES&S, Diebold and Triad were all owned or operated by Republican partisans. The shift of more than 300,000 votes after 12:20 am election night was a virtual statistical impossibility.

It was engineered by Michael Connell, an IT specialist long affiliated with the Bush Family. Blackwell gave Connell’s Ohio-based GovTech the contract to count Ohio’s votes, which was done on servers housed in the Old Pioneer Bank Building in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Thus the Ohio vote tally was done on servers that also carried the e-mail for Karl Rove and the national Republican Party. Connell died in a mysterious plane crash in December, 2008, after being subpoenaed in the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit focused on how the 2004 election was decided (disclosure: we were attorney and plaintiff in that suit).

Diebold’s founder, Walden O’Dell, had vowed to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes — and thus the presidency — to his friend George W. Bush. That it was done in part on electronic voting machines and software O’Dell happened to own (Diebold has since changed hands twice) remains a cautionary red flag for those who believe merely winning the popular vote will give Barack Obama a second term.

This November, much of the Ohio electorate will cast its ballots on machines again owned by close cronies of the Republican presidential candidate. In Cincinnati and elsewhere around the state, the e-voting apparati are owned by Hart Intercivic. Hart’s machines are infamous for mechanical failures, “glitches,” counting errors and other timely problems now thoroughly identified with the way Republicans steal elections.

As in 2004, Ohio’s governor is now a Republican. This time it’s the very right-wing John Kasich, himself a multi-millionaire courtesy of a stint at Lehman Brothers selling state bonds, and the largesse of Rupert Murdoch, on whose Fox Network Kasich served as a late night bloviator. Murdoch wrote Kasich a game-changing $1 million check just prior to his winning the statehouse, an electoral victory shrouded in electronic intrigue. The exit polls in that election indicated that his opponent, incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland, had actually won the popular vote.

Ohio’s very Republican Secretary of State is John Husted, currently suing in the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the public from voting on the weekend prior to election day. As did Blackwell and Governor Robert Taft in 2004, Husted and Kasich will control Ohio’s electronic vote count on election night free of meaningful public checks or balances

Hart Intercivic, on whose machines the key votes will be cast in Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati, was taken over last year by H.I.G. Capital. Prominent partners and directors on the H.I.G. board hail from Bain Company or Bain Capital, both connected to Mitt Romney. H.I.G. employees have contributed at least $338,000 to Romney’s campaign. H.I.G. Directors John P. Bolduk and Douglas Berman are major Romney fundraisers, as is former Bain and H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve.

U.S. courts have consistently ruled that the software in electronic voting machines is proprietary to the manufacturer, even though individual election boards may own the actual machines. Thus there will be no vote count transparency on election night in Ohio.

The tally will be conducted by Hart Intercivic and controlled by Husted and Kasich, with no public recourse or accountability. As federal testimony from the deceased Michael Connell made clear in 2008, electronically flipping an election is relatively cheap and easy to do, especially if you or your compatriots programmed the machines.

So as the corporate media swarm through Ohio, reporting breathlessly from “ground zero” in Cincinnati, don’t hold your own breath waiting for them to also clarify that the voting machines in what may once again be America’s decisive swing state are owned, programmed, and tabulated by some of the Romney campaign’s closest associates.

[Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are authors of Will the GOP Steal America’s 2012 Election?, their fifth book on election protection. It is available as an e-book at harveywasserman.com and freepress.org. Read more of Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis’ writing on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged 2012 Elections, Bob Fitrakis, Election Theft, Harvey Wasserman, Republican Party, Voting Machines | 1 Comment

BOOKS / Ron Jacobs : Aaron Dixon’s ‘My People Are Rising’

Posted on October 16, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

My People Are Rising:
A Black Panther memoir

Aaron Dixon was both a leader and a foot soldier; an intelligent black man in the mid-century United States who knew racism first-hand and wanted to end it.

By Ron Jacobs | The Rag Blog | October 15, 2012

[My People Are Rising: Memoir of a Black Panther Party Captain by Aaron Dixon (2012: Haymarket Books); Paperback; 384 pp; $17.95.]

The Black Panthers were arguably the most important revolutionary organization in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Their presence was an inspiration to millions of men and women around the globe, especially those living in colonial and neocolonial situations.

Furthermore, the Party was a key element in the movement in the United States against imperialism and its manifestations of war and racism. It was because of this latter truth that the Party was also the target of a brutal campaign of repression organized at the highest levels of Washington, D.C.’s security apparatus. Surveillance, false charges and arrests, the use of informants and provocateurs, and outright murder; nothing was out of the question when it came to destroying the Black Panther Party.

Begun in Oakland in 1967, the Panthers organized chapters in Los Angeles and Seattle, and Washington soon afterward. The Seattle chapter would become one of the Party’s longest lasting chapters and an integral part of the African-American and leftist community in that city. Founded and led by a young Seattle native named Aaron Dixon, the legacy of the Seattle chapter is still present in that city.

Like many young people discovering leftist politics in the late 1960s, my experience was greatly influenced by the Panthers. For better and worse, their leather jackets, berets, and guns — combined with a media presentation as badasses — appealed to me and many of my compatriots.

One instance in my political education that remains indelible in my mind occurred during the summer of 1970. I was attending summer school at the U.S. high school in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. We had just spent a class discussing the very recent U.S. invasion of Cambodia, the student strike, law enforcement murders of young people at Kent and Jackson State, and the meaning of Nixon.

Class had been dismissed and I was hanging out in Gruneburg Park next to the school. There was a lawn in the park where German hippies hung out and smoked hashish. Young travelers from around the world often ended up on this lawn, playing guitars and drums, smoking dope, meeting up, and discussing politics and music.

That afternoon my friend and I ended up in a circle of people discussing the Black Panthers. The discussion was more or less being led by an African-American man around 20. I had seen him in the park before, but had never talked with him. As he continued to talk, about half of the people drifted away, either too stoned to listen to his politics or just too apathetic. I stayed.

Eventually, there were only three of us: me, a black girl I knew from high school, and the aforementioned young man (who seemed old to my15-year-old self). He took out some literature from his backpack and handed us each a packet. As it turned out, he was a GI recently discharged from the Army who was traveling around Europe. He had ordered several copies of Mao Ze Dong’s Little Red Book and a quantity of other literature from the Panthers’ Oakland office to distribute on his travels.

He suggested a couple articles to read in the issue of the Black Panther newspaper he had given us and for the next several days, the three of us met in the park and discussed what we had read. He continued on his travels, and the girl and I stayed on, occasionally hanging out at school the following year despite the different circles we traveled in.

I relate the previous story as an example of the influence the Panthers had. The recently released memoir by Aaron Dixon tells a much more compelling story while providing a history of the Party through the eyes of one of its long-term members.

Dixon was both a leader and a foot soldier; an intelligent black man in the mid-century United States who knew racism first-hand and wanted to end it. As a young teen he occasionally participated in protests against racism while learning the streets of Seattle. His parents worked hard to maintain an approximation of a middle class life for their children while biting their tongues all too often when they ran into racism in their daily lives.

Like many others of his generation, it was the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968 that convinced him that nonviolent protest was no longer the only option. If there was to be real change in the United States, it would have to be of the kind put forward by the newly found Black Panther Party.

Dixon and several others traveled to the San Francisco Bay Area for a Black Student Union conference and he joined the Panthers. Simultaneously, he was made captain of the Seattle branch.

Dixon’s book, titled My People Are Rising: Memoir of a Black Panther Party Captain, goes on to tell a tale of protest, gunfights with police and their stooges, and political change. The reader is presented with a story full of action, love, and politics. The Black Panther Party’s rise and fall is revealed through the experiences of Aaron Dixon and those men and women he worked and lived with during his time in the party.

Moments of victory and moments of defeat fill these pages, both personal and political. The narrative reads like an action thriller. Dixon’s writing is even, descriptive, and urgent. Whether describing the preparations for an attack by police on a Panther house or the organization of the Panther breakfast program in Seattle, My People Are Rising keeps the reader in the story, curious as to which way the events described will turn.

The Panthers eventually fell apart. The power they represented in the African-American community diminished midway through the 1970s in their primary base of Oakland and much earlier in other parts of the United States. Much of this can be attributed to the repression carried out by law enforcement under the aegis of COINTELPRO.

Other factors that caused the disintegration of the party were related to the nature of the Party itself. During the heyday of their organizing drive, many people who joined saw the Panthers as just another street gang and used it accordingly: selling drugs and pimping women.

When the Party leadership got wind of such activities carried out in the Panthers name, they dealt with it quickly and harshly. Indeed, when the Party began to shrink in size, Dixon was called to Oakland and became a member of one of the cadres that engaged in such activity. A questionable program was begun to chase dealers and pimps from the streets of Oakland’s neighborhoods. I say questionable not because the pimps and dealers should have stayed but because the money, guns, and violence involved invited corruption.

Meanwhile, the political wing of the Party had involved itself in electoral politics, running and endorsing candidates for political office in Oakland. Unfortunately, no Panthers were elected, although some of the candidates they endorsed did. By 1978, though, the party was essentially finished.

Coda: In 1978 a friend and I were hitchhiking in Oakland. We were headed to Santa Cruz. An African-American man driving a Buick Regal picked us up. Once we got in the car he asked us where we were headed. I told him Santa Cruz and he said he would take us there.

First, though, he needed to stop at a house in the Oakland Hills. My friend and I shrugged our shoulders and went along for the ride. He found the house, went inside for 15 or 20 minutes and came out in a hurry. We left that house and made our way to Highway 17 towards Santa Cruz.

Once we were on the highway he pulled out a big joint and lit it. We smoked the weed and sat back. He handed me a pint of brandy and asked me to open it. After a few sips, our tongues loosened and we got to talking about Oakland.

My friend and I had only been in California for five months and told him so. He told us he had grown up there. As the conversation somehow turned to politics, the subject of the Panthers came up. He dismissed them out of hand. I objected, telling him the story I related at the beginning of this piece.

He chuckled and said; yeah he was like that once, too. After working for the Chairman, though, all he was going to say was that the Panthers had turned out to be nothing more than another bunch of gangsters. I didn’t argue and I didn’t agree. We changed the subject.

Aaron Dixon’s memoir is the first of many Panther memoirs I have read that honestly addresses the demise of the Panthers. He discusses the role of COINTELPRO, the descent into gangsterism, and the end of the revolutionary aspect of the Party. He does not mince words, nor does he disavow what the Party meant to millions and means in history.

In the book’s final paragraph, Dixon apologizes for nothing, remembering the Black Panther Party as “men and women rising in unison to…write a new, bold future for Black America.” That, I believe, is the truth found in this book and the truth revealed by history.

[Rag Blog contributor Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. He recently released a collection of essays and musings titled Tripping Through the American Night. His latest novel, The Co-Conspirator’s Tale, is published by Fomite. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. Ron Jacobs can be reached at ronj1955@gmail.com. Find more articles by Ron Jacobs on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged Aaron Dixon, Black Liberation Movement, Black Panthers, Books, Memoir, Ron Jacobs, Sixties | 1 Comment

Marilyn Katz : What Every Woman Should Know (About Paul Ryan)

Posted on October 16, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Rep. Paul Ryan faces moderator Martha Raddatz in the vice presidential debate. Photo by Saul Loeb / AFP / GettyImages.
One sure thing:
What every woman should know

Paul Ryan has voted 59 times to support legislation that ranges from declaring a fetus a human being with full legal rights to allowing hospitals to refuse treatment to a woman needing post-abortion care — even if she will die without it.

By Marilyn Katz | The Rag Blog | October 15, 2012

Paul Ryan offered few details on most issues of domestic and foreign policy in his debate with Vice President Biden, but there was one on which he had both a clear position and a clear path: women’s ability to control their pregnancies.

While women had mostly feared the advent of a Ryan/Romney SupremeCourt that might overturn Roe v. Wade, Ryan let the nation know that his administration would also pursue a congressional strategy to outlaw abortion as well as end federal funding for contraception (already outlawed for abortion) and, by overturning Obamacare, eliminate the guaranteed insurance coverage of contraception and other reproductive health services.

This actually should come as no surprise as, while Ryan would like to be known these days for his economic policies, the only issue on which he has consistently put forward bills in Congress is that of reproductive choice. According to The Progressive, “Of the 81 bills Ryan has sponsored or co-sponsored in this congressional session, only three have dealt with the economy,” while 10 have as their aim the control of women’s bodies.

In fact, his position during the debate was somewhat moderate as, during his 13 years in Congress, Ryan has voted 59 times to support legislation that ranges from declaring a fetus a human being with full legal rights to allowing hospitals to refuse treatment to a woman needing post-abortion care — even if she will die without it.

Ryan is not alone — his bills are the stock-in-trade of a slew of Republicans, from California’s Issa and Missouri’s Todd Akin to Illinois’ Walsh, Roskam, and Schilling. In fact, during this congressional session — where the most bills put forth by Republicans were about women’s health — each bill received the unanimous vote of House Republicans.

And as in the Congress, so to in the 26 state legislatures now under Republican control, in which more than 1000 anti-choice bills have been introduced, and many passed, over the past two years.

While they may hide their positions under the cloak of religious freedom, we should be clear — it is about anything but. No one is telling Catholic women that they must choose abortion or use contraception (although all estimates say that 98 percent of Catholic women of child-bearing age who have ever had sex have) but the law does say that the vast majority of non-Catholics who use or work for Catholic hospitals and schools should not have to give up their religious freedom and beliefs (nor their right to full health care) in order to keep their jobs.

Nor are there any Republican-sponsored bills to compel Christian Scientists to vaccinate their children or bills that outlaw vasectomies. It is somewhat ironic and important to remember that this is the party that, in 1960, railed against the possibility of a John F. Kennedy presidency, saying that it would violate the nation’s ethos and open the door for Vatican control of our nation.

What it is about is Paul Ryan and the other Republicans attempting to impose their personal religious views on the rest of us — imperiling women’s health and the separation of church and state on which this nation was founded. Women comprise approximately 58 percent of America’s vote. They can determine the fate of this election and, in doing so, will determine their own.

This article was cross-posted to The Huffington Post.

[An anti-war and civil rights organizer during the Vietnam War, Marilyn Katz helped organize security during the August 1968 protests at the Democratic National Convention. Katz has founded and led groups like the Chicago Women’s Union, Reproductive Rights National Network, and Chicago Women Organized for Reproductive Choice in the 1960s and 1970s, and Chicagoans Against War in Iraq in 2002. The founder and president of Chicago-based MK Communications, Katz can be contacted at mkatz@mkcpr.com. Read more articles by Marilyn Katz on The Rag Blog.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged Abortion Rights, Marilyn Katz, Paul Ryan, Religious Freedom, Separation of Church and State, Women's Health | Leave a comment

James McEnteer : I Drank the Booze Today, Oh Boy

Posted on October 12, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Cover art by Lynn Hatzius from Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.
Losing the plot:
I drank the booze today, oh boy

Barney considers himself devoted to the Rodney King school of public thought: why can’t we all just get along?

By James McEnteer | The Rag Blog | October 12, 2012

Down at the neighborhood tavern, I was listening for the umpteenth time to my friend Barney lament how food stamps are not accepted for alcohol. Like me, Barney’s been out of work almost two years now. He’s been through the five stages of grief more than once.

About the third beer he segued into his second-favorite topic, the terrible conflicts caused by religious intolerance. Barney considers himself devoted to the Rodney King school of public thought: why can’t we all just get along?

News came on the TV that some Iranian cleric raised the bounty on the life of Salman Rushdie, from $2.8 to $3.3 million dollars.

“Those guys are nuts,” I said. “Rushdie didn’t even do anything. It was some bozo in California made that anti-Islam movie that pissed off all the Muslims. So why are they getting back on his case again?”

“Those California people are kind of obscure. Rushdie’s high profile…”

“So they go after the famous guy instead of the guys who actually did it?”

“Hey, I don’t think he’s worried. I mean, they couldn’t get Rushdie before. They put that original price on his head back in 1989, when three million bucks really meant something. And nobody ever got near him. He finally quit hiding and went back to his normal life of international celebrity.”

“Three point three million isn’t exactly chump change…”

“How do you suppose a bunch of Iranian religious fanatics happened to come by that much cabbage anyhow?”

“Maybe they put the squeeze on the faithful.”

“Maybe we ought to go after that money ourselves,” said Barney.

“What? Assassinate Salman Rushdie? Are you nuts?”

“Well, I mean, we wouldn’t really have to kill him. We could just make him disappear and pretend he’s dead…”

“The Iranians would never believe it.”

“Hey, it worked with Osama bin Laden, no? Is he really dead? Was he buried at sea, like they said? There was no corpse. Did he ever really exist?”

“How could we make Rushdie disappear?”

“Well, he’d have to help us.”

“And why would he do that?”

“To take the pressure off himself. If the Iranians think he’s dead, they’ll stop coming after him, won’t they? Maybe we could sweeten the pot for him too. You know, split the fatwa cash. Give him the half million the Iranians just added…”

“But Rushdie loves the limelight. He’s not just going to walk away.”

“Give me limelight and give me death? What kind of a choice is that? Even Rushdie must realize that discretion is the better part of valor…”

“He would never go along with those kind of cliches,” I said. “And even if Rushdie agreed to such a crazy scheme, we’d still have to offer some kind of proof to the Iranians.”

“How hard could it be to come up with a body? People die every day in one disaster or another. We could pay a Hollywood makeup genius to craft Rushdie’s head out of silicon, then hire some starving crazies to parade it through the streets of Benghazi on a stick, shouting ‘God is great!’”

“Sounds sketchy to me, Barn. What if the Iranians refused to pay up?”

“Then it’s back to the Power Ball Lottery for us, I guess. And let Netanyahu kick off World War Three. If the Iranians won’t pay up, fuck em.”

“Yeah, they probably don’t even have the dough. What’re you drinkin?”

“Well, I’d like to try some of whatever Mitt Romney sucked down before he gave that speech calling half of Americans freeloaders. He had to be high…”

“No, man. He’s a Mormon. He doesn’t drink booze.”

“You mean, he was just being Mormonic?”

“Something like that…”

“Well, there’s always the Hong Kong option.”

“What do you mean?”

“There’s a wealthy Hong Kong tycoon offering $65 million dollars to any guy who’ll marry his daughter. He says: ‘I don’t care if he’s rich or poor. The important thing is that he’s generous and kind-hearted…’”

“That could be either one of us. What’s wrong with her?”

“Nothing. I saw her photo. She’s very nice looking, in her early thirties.”

“There must be a line of guys around the block.”

“There is one complication. She’s already married to her girlfriend.”

“Ah, so… Well, nobody’s perfect.”

“You are generous and kind-hearted…”

“Yeah, but that’s what keeps me from the only other get rich quick scheme I know.”

“Which is what?”

“Running for political office.”

“You gotta draw the line somewhere.”

“See, you’re not cut out for politics either.”

“This presidential election is too spooky anyway.”

“What do you mean?”

“An empty chair running against an empty suit. That’s just weird.

“When’s the next Power Ball draw anyway?”

“Friday night.”

“Then there’s still time.”

[James McEnteer is the author of Shooting the Truth: the Rise of American Political Documentaries (Praeger). He lives in Quito, Ecuador. Read more of James McEnteer’s articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged Humor, James McEnteer, Political Satire, Religious Tolerance, Salman Rushdie | Leave a comment

Huw Beynon and Steve Davies : Bruce Springsteen Brings on the Wrecking Ball

Posted on October 12, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Bruce Springsteen performs earlier this year with the E Street Band at the Paramount Theatre in Asbury Park, New Jersey. Photo by Mike Coppola / Getty Images.
Bring on your wrecking ball:
The politics of Bruce Springsteen

Springsteen’s patriotism is a central part of his being. He describes it as an ‘angry sort of patriotism,’ something that he doesn’t want to cede to ‘the Right side of the street.’

By Huw Beynon and Steve Davies / Red Pepper / October 12, 2012

LONDON — On a cold, wet day towards the end of June, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band followed their eight pantechnicons into Manchester. They were there for the 39th leg of their North American and European tour, promoting Springsteen’s latest album Wrecking Ball.

After monsoon conditions all day, the rain stopped as the band took the stage of the Etihad stadium. This was the beginning of the great Bruce Springsteen show, part concert, part revivalist meeting, filled with theatricality and a fair amount of humoUr and pathos. The E Street big band sound provided a powerful backing to the lyrics of the 30 songs that filled the next three and a half hours.

At the start of the European tour, Springsteen explained how his deepest motivation “comes out of the house that I grew up in and the circumstances that were set up there, which is mirrored around the United States with the level of unemployment we have right now.”

In that house in Freehold, New Jersey, Springsteen’s father worked intermittently at the Karagheusian Rug Mill (which left him partially deaf), the local bus garage and for a while at the county jail. Unemployment was frequent, however, and it destroyed his confidence and sense of worth, leaving his wife as the organizer of the family home.

This tension between bad work and no work has been a perennial theme in Springsteen’s writing, alongside a search for freedom and self-discovery. It also left him with a strong attachment to places and the memories stored up in them.

When the Giants’ stadium in New Jersey was up for demolition, he sang the first version of “Wrecking Ball” at a farewell concert, developing the physical process of destruction into a brilliant metaphor of class violence and the “flat destruction of some American ideals and values.” He sings of how “all our little victories and glories/ Have turned into parking lots.” And he repeats the invocation: “Hold tight to your anger, and don’t fall to your fears.”

In “Death of My Home Town,” he sings of the place where he grew up:

The Marauders raided in the dark
And brought death to my home town
They destroyed our families, factories
And they took our homes
They left our bodies in the plains
The vultures picked our bones.

Roots

Springsteen is firmly rooted in the tradition of America’s great popular singer-songwriters. He writes of love, death and loss, loneliness, growing up, and work, but also of resistance and rebellion, much of it couched in religious metaphor about the search for the promised land within the American Dream. Narrative songs such as ‘”Thunder Road” and “The River” stand comparison with the very best of popular songs but also cast a nod in the direction of Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan, and John Steinbeck.

He has pursued this lineage as a conscious choice. He has read widely, sung with Pete Seeger, and recorded gospel music and labour and civil rights movement songs. The various themes are deliberately brought together in his latest album to “contextualise historically that this has happened before.”

This is most notable in “We Are Alive” with its implicit reference to “The Ballad of Joe Hill.” Here the spirits of the strikers killed in the 1877 transport strike in Maryland join with civil rights protesters killed in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, and Mexican migrants currently dying in the southern desert:

We are alive
And though our bodies lie alone here in the dark
Our souls and spirits rise
To carry the fire and light the spark
To fight shoulder to shoulder and heart to heart
We are alive

Patriotism and class

Springsteen sings from the world of the U.S. manual working class. A world with union cards and union meeting halls; a world that has been taken apart over the past 30 years as industries have closed and many have been economic conscripts into imperial wars.

In giving voice to this, he calls upon elements of post-revolutionary, post-civil war America with a vision of a genuinely democratic working class republic — something that has been stolen by the marauders, the robber barons and bankers, but which is somehow still lived out in the resilience of its working people.

This patriotism is a central part of his being. He describes it as an “angry sort of patriotism,” something that he doesn’t want to cede to “the Right side of the street.” This has often led to misunderstanding, as was the case with “Born in the USA.” Deeply critical and acerbic about the America that came out of the Vietnam war, it was nevertheless — with its anthemic chorus — admired by Ronald Reagan.

Springsteen has become philosophical over such misinterpretations, recognizing that no artist has the “fascist power” to control the meaning of their words. It has led him to talk repeatedly of a dialogue with his audience. It is likely that a song on the current record, “We Take Care of Our Own,” will spark such a conversation. Again it is rhetorical, holding the American ideal up to the mirror and suggesting that “the road of good intentions has gone dry as a bone.”

In the U.S., where the flag is ever-present and the oath of allegiance spoken daily by children at school, it is easy to see why a fight over what it means to be “American” is a necessary plank of left politics. However, the tensions between the U.S. as revolutionary republic and imperial power are obvious.

If patriotism causes some problems, the class roots of his writings clearly provides him with a universal appeal. In 2010 at Hyde Park he opened with “London Calling,” a tribute to Joe Strummer and the Clash, and he has recalled the 1970s and his affinity with punk and how easy it is to “forget that class was only tangentially touched upon in popular music… at the time.”

It was noticeable that in the first European date of the tour in Seville, he spoke at length and in Spanish about how the workers were being made to pay for the crisis and saluting the indignados. The next day, the Andalucian UGT, the Spanish union federation, had a video of the speech on its website.

Defiance

Springsteen and the band have amassed a huge songbook, and while there is a range of musical styles and themes, the dark side of American life is never far from the surface. He celebrates the freedom of the streets (“We walk the way we want to walk/We talk the way we want to talk”), but the power of the police and the patrol car is never far away.

After New York City police shot dead an unarmed West African immigrant in 1999 he wrote the song “American Skin (41 Shots)” and in defiance of the NYPD played it at Madison Square Garden. In response they refused the normal courtesy escort for the band, called for a boycott of his shows and organized vociferous anti-Springsteen protests.

With the recession, and the death of his close friend Clarence Clemons, this darker side has taken the foreground. Enraged by the destruction of the material world of the working class, whereby “the banker man grows fatter, the working man grows thin,” he goads them to

Bring on your wrecking ball
C’mon and take your best shot
Let me see what you’ve got
Bring on your wrecking ball

Because we will survive, and like the “Jack of all Trades,”
You use what you’ve got
And you learn to make do
You take the old, you make it new
If I had me a gun I’d find the
bastards and shoot ’em on sight

Music and politics

The contradiction involved in Springsteen, now a multi-millionaire, singing with the voice of the poor and oppressed, is obvious. He is not alone here but his resolution of the problem has been unique. His solution was to tour, to play to large stadium audiences, tell the stories and keep the flame alive.

He talks about singing with the band as his “job of work,” and of the “hardcore work thing” shared by all the band members. On stage he will talk of the “foolishness of rock and roll.” In a master class with young musicians he stressed the need to understand their art as being both intrinsically trivial and “more important than death itself.”

While cynics would say that he does all this for the money, and he would agree that the money is important, there is more to it than that. This was made clear when Michael Sandel selected a Springsteen concert as one example of “What Money Can’t Buy” in his new book on the moral limits of markets.

Criticising economists in the U.S., who have argued that the band could net an additional £4 million for every concert with the “correct” pricing policy, Sandel points out that pricing out the people who understand and want to listen to and sing with the songs would change the nature of the concert, making it worthless.

Given his celebrity status, it is difficult to see how Springsteen can keep in touch with life on the streets and retain the voice to sing in the way he does. When asked, he talks of remaining “interested and awake.” He is wary of formal politics and though he had clear hopes for the Obama administration — he played at the inauguration (see below) — his disappointment is palpable. He has been energized by the Occupy Wall Street movement and has hopes that this can change the “national conversation,” focusing it on inequality for the first time for 30 years.

Wrecking Ball is his contribution to this conversation.

Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger, left, sing “This Land is Your Land” at the 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama. Photo by Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images.

Playing for the president

Bruce Springsteen long avoided commenting on White House politics after Ronald Reagan famously misappropriated “Born in the USA” during his reelection campaign. The president ignored the song’s searing critique to claim it contained “a message of hope” that he would make reality if reelected. At the time Springsteen described it as a “manipulation.”

George W Bush and the Iraq War caused him to re-think. In 2004 he backed the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, playing 33 concerts as part of the “Vote for Change” tour. He wrote that “for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out.”

After Bush’s re-election Springsteen became an increasingly outspoken critic. In response to Hurricane Katrina he adapted Blind Alfred Reed’s protest song about the Great Depression, “How Can a Poor Man Stand Such Times and Live?,” transposing the original character of the song’s charlatan doctor onto Bush. He dedicated it to “President Bystander.”

Springsteen publicly backed Obama when the future president was still battling Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. He enthused: “After the terrible damage done over the past eight years, a great American reclamation project needs to be undertaken. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate to lead that project.” Springsteen played at several election rallies — and the president’s inauguration concert.

To coincide with the inauguration he released the upbeat album Working on a Dream. The title track echoed that of Obama’s autobiography Dreams from My Father. But the album itself lacked direction. The new cheery Bruce had lost his distinctive voice.

Wrecking Ball has seen Springsteen reclaim old territory. As he acknowledged at a press conference in Paris, “You can never go wrong with pissed off and rock ’n’ roll,” and these songs are angrier than anything he’s penned before. Some of that anger is clearly directed at Obama.

Springsteen was only cautiously critical of the president in Paris: “He kept General Motors alive, he got through healthcare — though not the public system I would have wanted… But big business still has too much say in government and there have not been as many middle or working class voices in the administration as I expected. I thought Guantanamo would have been closed by now.” His music, however, offers a far more damning assessment. The single ‘We Take Care of Our Own’ tackles not only Obama’s America but also Springsteen’s involvement in party politics:

   I been knocking on the door that holds the throne,
   I been stumbling on good hearts turned to stone,
   The road of good intentions has gone dry as a bone

Springsteen has said he’ll be staying on the sidelines during the 2012 election, commenting that ‘the artist is supposed to be the canary in the cage’. That hasn’t stopped the Obama campaign putting ‘We Take Care of Our Own’ on the official ‘campaign soundtrack’. It seems that Obama, like Reagan, recognises the power of Springsteen’s critical patriotism, even if he fails to recognise its critique.

— Emma Hughes / Red Pepper

[Huw Beynon, Steve Davies, and Emma Hughes write for Red Pepper, a bi-monthly magazine and website of left politics and culture based in London.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged Bruce Springsteen, Music, Obama Inauguration, Patriotism, Red Pepper, Rock 'n Roll, Singer-Songwriters, Working Class, Wrecking Ball | Leave a comment

Posted on October 12, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Word Passed Down
through Forbidden Radio

for Chuck Kinder and John Sinclair on their birthdays, October 2012

The voices beside your pillow, friends past midnight, Wailing from the River, whistling through the Gaps, Bring tales and tones so pure and sexual they lift you like a knife. Their guitars and drums like Indians, slaves and Gospels freed, Raise heroes from the outlaw, racing in the streets, All they say truer than what’s on your parents’ new TV.

The Hill!–the Hill!–shines beyond Highways’ humming fins The Hill!–the Hill!–gives you Muddy Waters and Hazel Dickens The Hill!–the Hill!–is gained by going out past Main Street The Hill!–the Hill!–asks you to dance like one who can’t be seen Ree-bel! Ree-bel! Ree-bel! Ree-bel!

What is this America but promises That those left out May rise according to their worth? What is it but best minds and hearts In red jackets ripped apart? What Wars and wars haunt Desks of Insurance agents? What results are outright when the Road is open, Fields are level, and choices abundant? What more might happen to Motor Cities After Bebop, Doowop, and John Coltrane chords– Yes, chords from notes– Joined with Highland melodies? What more might you do with your pillows’ pain, Hungry ears’ wound and bow?

John reached out to make Rock free as jazz. John reached out to bring White into Black. John reached out to smoke and drink and fuck Upside-down or any other way he liked. John risked his life for all he felt gave some light. Chuck punched his way out of West Virginia parking-lots. Chuck claimed seven Armed Robberies when age seventeen. Chuck dove into Elizabethans, Matthew Arnold, The Golden Bough, and McCluhan with the same drive. Chuck brought friends West to share in edges’ glow.

Decades pass. Partners split and losses wrench. Knives of Indians and Blacks show up outside bars. Water Follies lap against corpses found in the Ocean. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, a Bush and a Clinton Are President. John and Chuck smoke and drink, Teach, create, promote and inspire More who listen and talk around their tables. They maintain Forbidden radio. They can be ignored but not stopped. Their beards thin to catch light.

What is that word abideth Night? What is that sound of Spirit bright? What holds the hand that grips your hand On what might have been your death-bed? What plays the horns of devotees who want to be For all time and a force for good? What is that force made strangers by your pillow friends? What is that word? That word is Love.

Gather round the company, Share the love around.

Bring on wine. Bring on Fats. Bring on Eric And thousands welcome gamblers and clowns. Bring on Jack, bring on herb. Bring on Aunt Tee, bring on Aunt Bea. Bring on Demons of basepaths and night-sweats. Bring on Mardi Gras Black Indians’ gifts every year Of brilliance sewn into design. Bring on the giant night and whole works of sunsets over water. The word–the thing, the thing we know, Beyond our words, at last, that thing we heard So ‘way back when, our out and light and balm, That thing is Love. Gods bless this merry company, Share the love around. Don Paul

Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Posted on October 12, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

I drank the booze today, oh boy Losing the Plot James McEnteer Down at the neighborhood tavern, I was listening for the umpteenth time to my friend Barney lament how food stamps are not accepted for alcohol. Like me, Barney’s been out of work almost two years now. He’s been through the five stages of grief more than once. About the third beer he segued into his second-favorite topic, the terrible conflicts caused by religious intolerance. Barney considers himself devoted to the Rodney King school of public thought: why can’t we all just get along? News came on the TV that some Iranian cleric raised the bounty on the life of Salman Rushdie, from $2.8 to $3.3 million dollars. “Those guys are nuts,” I said. “Rushdie didn’t even do anything. It was some bozo in California made that anti-Islam movie that pissed off all the Muslims. So why are they getting back on his case again?” “Those California people are kind of obscure. Rushdie’s high profile…” “So they go after the famous guy instead of the guys who actually did it?” “Hey, I don’t think he’s worried. I mean, they couldn’t get Rushdie before. They put that original price on his head back in 1989, when three million bucks really meant something. And nobody ever got near him. He finally quit hiding and went back to his normal life of international celebrity.” “Three point three million isn’t exactly chump change…” “How do you suppose a bunch of Iranian religious fanatics happened to come by that much cabbage anyhow?” “Maybe they put the squeeze on the faithful.” “Maybe we ought to go after that money ourselves,” said Barney. “What? Assassinate Salman Rushdie? Are you nuts?” “Well, I mean, we wouldn’t really have to kill him. We could just make him disappear and pretend he’s dead…” “The Iranians would never believe it.” “Hey, it worked with Osama bin Laden, no? Is he really dead? Was he buried at sea, like they said? There was no corpse. Did he ever really exist?” “How could we make Rushdie disappear?” “Well, he’d have to help us.” “And why would he do that?” “To take the pressure off himself. If the Iranians think he’s dead, they’ll stop coming after him, won’t they? Maybe we could sweeten the pot for him too. You know, split the fatwa cash. Give him the half million the Iranians just added…” “But Rushdie loves the limelight. He’s not just going to walk away.” “Give me limelight and give me death? What kind of a choice is that? Even Rushdie must realize that discretion is the better part of valor…” “He would never go along with those kind of cliches,” I said. “And even if Rushdie agreed to such a crazy scheme, we’d still have to offer some kind of proof to the Iranians.” “How hard could it be to come up with a body? People die every day in one disaster or another. We could pay a Hollywood makeup genius to craft Rushdie’s head out of silicon, then hire some starving crazies to parade it through the streets of Benghazi on a stick, shouting ‘God is great!’” “Sounds sketchy to me, Barn. What if the Iranians refused to pay up?” “Then it’s back to the Power Ball Lottery for us, I guess. And let Netanyahu kick off World War Three. If the Iranians won’t pay up, fuck em.” “Yeah, they probably don’t even have the dough. What’re you drinkin?” “Well, I’d like to try some of whatever Mitt Romney sucked down before he gave that speech calling half of Americans freeloaders. He had to be high…” “No, man. He’s a Mormon. He doesn’t drink booze.” “You mean, he was just being Mormonic?” “Something like that…” “Well, there’s always the Hong Kong option.” “What do you mean?” “There’s a wealthy Hong Kong tycoon offering $ 65 million dollars to any guy who’ll marry his daughter. He says: ‘I don’t care if he’s rich or poor. The important thing is that he’s generous and kind-hearted’…” “That could be either one of us. What’s wrong with her?” “Nothing. I saw her photo. She’s very nice looking, in her early thirties.” “There must be a line of guys around the block.” “There is one complication. She’s already married to her girlfriend.” “Ah, so… Well, nobody’s perfect.” “You are generous and kind-hearted…” “Yeah, but that’s what keeps me from the only other get rich quick scheme I know.” “Which is what?” “Running for political office.” “You gotta draw the line somewhere.” “See, you’re not cut out for politics either.” “This presidential election is too spooky anyway.” “What do you mean?” “An empty chair running against an empty suit. That’s just weird. “When’s the next Power Ball draw anyway?” “Friday night.” “Then there’s still time.” James McEnteer lives in Quito, Ecuador.

Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Tom Hayden : Dark-Skinned Democracy Wins in Venezuela

Posted on October 12, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez celebrates with a crowd of supporters after winning reelection. Photo by Juan Barreto / Getty Images.
Chavez’ Bolivarian Revolution:
Dark-skinned democracy
wins in Venezuela

Modern liberals see something ominous in the Chavez mandate. They frequently opine that the dark-skinned poor are an uneducated, worshipful, populist mass of people subject to the Leader’s hypnotic speeches.

By Tom Hayden | The Rag Blog | October 11, 2012

Hugo Chavez was reelected president of Venezuela by a 56-44 percent margin on October 7, extending his 14-year revolutionary tenure for another six-year term. The margin was significantly closer than in previous campaigns, and set the stage for legislative elections this December.

Chavez was carried to victory by the dark-skinned voters who form the core of his revolutionary experiment, and against the continuing skepticism of mainstream liberal media like The New York Times and leaders of both U.S. political parties. At the beginning of his term, President Obama offered a friendly handshake to Chavez at a summit of the Americas, but hard-line administration officials, whom Obama both inherited and kept on their jobs, smothered that initial thaw.

In the established consensus view, Latin America was divided by a “good” left — for example, Brazil and Chile — and a “bad” left led by Chavez along with Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Nicaragua, occasionally Peru, and Honduras before the coup. The dividing line seemed not to be whether the countries in question held democratic elections, but whether they adjusted to the agenda of international financial institutions (IFIs). The division was awkwardly constructed on the model of the Cold War.

The official Obama Venezuela policy, articulated by his former security adviser, Daniel Restrepo, has been to de-escalate the tension and threats of open destabilization, while at the same time doing little to nothing publicly to improve the bilateral relationship.

Mitt Romney condemned Obama on Monday as being too soft on Venezuela.

Chavez’ opponent, Henrique Capriles Radonski, a 40-year-old former legislator and scion of a wealthy developer, managed to unite a fragmented Venezuelan opposition. The United States was invisibly neutral in the process.

Chavez is being treated for cancer in Cuba, not only because of the medical skills of Cuban doctors, but because the Cuban government has held tightly to any news of his condition, which would have been the subject of daily tabloid gossip if Chavez was being treated in Caracas.

Nevertheless, Chavez has been away for prolonged periods, indicating to many Venezuelans that his time in power might be short-lived and the future uncertain. Continuing problems of crime, violence, and institutional dysfunction formed the basis of Capriles’ challenge. But Chavez’s indisputable claims to have sharply reduced poverty and improved health care for the poor sustained his march to victory.

The core, though not all, of Chavez’ support came from the long-disenfranchised, dark-skinned sector of Venezuelans. According to most accounts, one-fifth of the population is white, while the rest are mestizo (mixed), African and indigenous, historically the most oppressed sectors of Venezuelan society.

Electoral turnout was 80 percent for the election, consistent with a pattern of high mobilization during Chavez’ tenure in office. Venezuela under Chavez has been the site of more presidential, legislative, and local elections and referenda than any country on earth. Reputable observers like former President Jimmy Carter have recognized its electoral process to be fair.

But The New York Times, the U.S. State Department, and some on the liberal-left spectrum remain hostile to the Venezuelan government no matter how many elections it wins. Their skepticism ranges from legitimate issues such as Chavez’ caudillo style of governing to a belief that Chavez is building a dictatorship through democratic elections.

For example, Obama’s adviser to the 2009 Summit of the Americas, Jeffrey Davidow, a former ambassador to Venezuela during the era preceding Chavez, warned in 2007 of a “creeping coup” through democratic elections. Chairing a regional meeting of the Trilateral Commission in Cancun, Davidow asked, “What do other countries do when a country votes itself out of democracy? It’s an interesting question. At least it’s interesting to me.” (Hayden, Tom. “Obama and His Dinosaur in Trinidad,” April 21, 2009)

Corporate-oriented diplomats like Davidow may fear that Venezuelan democratic socialism is a creeping democratic threat to private American economic interests — including oil — in the future. Or they harbor an unconscious imperial bias going back to the Monroe Doctrine.

But modern liberals like the Times editors and reporters also see something ominous in the Chavez mandate. They frequently opine that the dark-skinned poor are an uneducated, worshipful, populist mass of people subject to the Leader’s hypnotic speeches. They complain that the Chavez base is subsidized by grants for eye care, preventive health care, housing, schooling, and, above all, government jobs. Thus, their argument suggests, Chavez has an unfair structural advantage, a lock on the electorate, due to his misiones (government programs).

For good measure, a front-page Times article asserted last week that the majority would vote for Chavez out of fear that he would somehow read their ballots and have them fired. (Neuman, William. New York Times, “Fears Persist Among Venezuelan Voters Ahead of Election,” October 5, 2012.)

On the surface, the argument would seem specious when 45 percent of the electorate votes, rallies, and protests loudly against Chavez year after year. They even voted against Chavez in 2007 when he sought to run for reelection indefinitely. Venezuela is a wildly argumentative society.

But there is an establishment fear that resembles that of Mitt Romney in his off-the-record condemnation of the “shiftless” 47 percent who will vote for Obama because they are blindly dependent on federal spending. In this view, such people are an unqualified populist mass of voters, whether they live in Harlem or Caracas.

Chavez runs “a well-oiled patronage system, a Tammany Hall-like operation,” according to the Times. What is ignored in this criticism is the historic discrimination and exclusion that made possible the rise of Tammany politics, and the fact that most people will excuse corruption if the corrupt machine delivers, which Chavez is so far able to do.

These are the same assumptions that underlie the modern neoliberal opposition to public (that is, government) spending, public works projects, public education, and public radio and television programming. The implicit “solution” is not to make these programs more transparent and accountable, but to privatize every sector of life possible. And that the voters of Venezuela will not do.

It is true that some Chavistas are so reflexively protective of the Bolivarian Revolution that they have difficulty criticizing the regime on any count. But any radical or revolutionary movement in power is bound to encounter intractable policy problems and harbor a tendency toward insulation and aggrandizement.

It appears that the Chavez era is beginning to wane, if only because of time and mortality. How to manage a gradual transition is a major challenge the Bolivarian civil society, party activists and intellectuals all face. The regional power balance will be at stake. Tragically, the United States and its mainstream policy intellectuals are unlikely to be constructive good neighbors.

[Tom Hayden is a former California state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice, and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His latest book is The Long Sixties. Hayden is director of the Peace and Justice Resource center and editor of The Peace Exchange Bulletin. Read more of Tom Hayden’s writing on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged Hugo Chavez, Latin America, Leftists, Nicaragua, Tom Hayden, U.S. Foreign Policy | Leave a comment

RAG RADIO / Thorne Webb Dreyer : Tova Andrea Wang & Harvey Wasserman on Voter Suppression in America

Posted on October 11, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Author Tova Andrea Wang and journalist Harvey Wasserman were Thorne Dreyer’s guests on Rag Radio, produced in the studios of KOOP-FM in Austin, on Friday, Oct. 5, 2012.
Rag Radio podcast:
Tova Andrea Wang and Harvey Wasserman
on voter suppression in America

By Thorne Webb Dreyer | The Rag Blog | October 11, 2012

Author Tova Andrea Wang and journalist Harvey Wasserman discussed voter suppression and voter theft in America on Rag Radio, Friday, October 5. Rag Radio is a syndicated radio show produced in the studios of KOOP-FM, a cooperatively-run, all-volunteer community radio station in Austin, Texas.

Wang and Wasserman talked about the racially-charged issue of “voter fraud” and the controversy over Voter IDs and the related court cases; the dangers posed by electronic voting machines and the history of alleged election theft in Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere; and the use of voter suppression in partisan politics, almost exclusively (in recent history) by the Republican Party.

Listen to Thorne Dreyer’s Rag Radio interview with Tova Andrea Wang and Harvey Wasserman here.

Rag Radio features hour-long in-depth interviews and discussion about issues of progressive politics, culture, and history. It is broadcast live on KOOP Fridays at 2 p.m. (CDT) and streamed live on the Internet, and is rebroadcast on WFTE-FM in Mt. Cobb and Scranton, PA., on Sunday mornings at 10 (EDT).

Tova Andrea Wang, a nationally-known expert on election reform and political participation, is Senior Democracy Fellow at Demos. She was Executive Director of the Century Foundation’s Post-2004 Election Reform Group, and was staff person to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. She is the author of The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans’ Right to Vote, a Century Foundation Book published this year by Cornell University Press.

Wang told the Rag Radio audience that “voter fraud at the polling places is virtually nonexistent, as has been proven time and time again,” but that efforts at voter suppression, especially on the part of Republican-led state legislatures, “has been extraordinary. An assault on voting rights that we haven’t seen in many years. Probably not since the civil rights movement in the Sixties.”

She also pointed to right-wing groups like the Houston-based True the Vote (“a bunch of white people going primarily to African-American precincts and challenging people”) that is “vowing to recruit a million people to go to the polls” and harass potential voters.

“Of course, historically, race has been a factor,” in voter disenfranchisement, she said. “But it has always been to some degree coupled with partisanship. It’s no secret to anyone that African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. And so, from the Republican perspective, if you’re willing to go to any lengths to win an election, then excluding blacks from the voting process is part of your campaign strategy.”

And now, with polls showing that Latinos are going “probably more than two-to-one” for the Democrats, they “have a big target on them, as people that the Republicans will want to keep from voting,” Wang said. “And it all gets tied up in anti-immigrant rhetoric… to make people fearful, even people who are lawful citizens.”

Tova Andrea Wang’s commentary on election reform has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous other print outlets, and she has frequently appeared on national radio and television programs, including NBC’s Today Show and ABC’s Nightly News and Good Morning America, and on CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR.

Joining Wang on Rag Radio was longtime alternative journalist Harvey Wasserman, who is the author or co-author of a dozen books. With Bob Fitrakis, he broke a number of stories about the alleged theft of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. Their investigative reporting at www.freepress.org prompted Rev. Jesse Jackson to call them “the Woodward and Bernstein of the 2004 election.” Will the GOP Steal America’s 2012 Election? is their fifth book on election protection.

Wasserman believes that, “unless Barack Obama is way, way ahead on election day… it is a virtual guarantee that Mitt Romney is going to become president — because of the voter suppression that could eliminate 10 million or more likely Democratic voters,” as has been estimated by the Brennan Center at New York University, and because of “the relative ease by which the electronic voting machines can be flipped” in nine key states with Republican governors.

“We saw it happen in 2004 in Columbus, Ohio. John Kerry was ahead by four points on election night,” he said, “and then there was a so-called glitch in the vote count, and the tallies stopped coming. And then suddenly at two in the morning George W. Bush was ahead by two points. That was a flip of six points which is a virtual statistical impossibility.”

Wasserman says that electronic voting machines are a special danger because “legitimate monitoring” of them “is not physically possible,” and that most “are owned and operated by Republican companies.” He thinks that there should at least “be paper ballots as a backup at every polling station.”

Another related issue, according to Wasserman, is the Electoral College (“the only college in which George Bush actually excelled”). “We still have in place this anachronism that allows the guy who comes in second to become president,” he said. “The electoral college narrows down the number of states you have to steal or buy in order to put someone in the White House,” and it discourages political involvement in parts of the country that aren’t in play in the presidential election.

“No one else has an electoral college like this. It’s a holdover from slavery.”

Harvey Wasserman is also a political activist who, with Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, and others, helped found www.nukefree.org. His writing is published at The Huffington Post, BuzzFlash, and CounterPunch, and his reports on election theft and nuclear power issues appear regularly on The Rag Blog.

The news isn’t all bad, according to Tova Wang. “A coalition of civil rights groups has been able to have a great impact over the last year, and were able to get a number of governors to veto voter ID laws,” she said. “And in some places, like Virginia for example, we were able to soften the type of ID law.”

“But there is tremendous confusion” about the laws, and, “between now and election day, we need to educate, educate, educate.”

“We have had some success in the courts” against repressive ID laws, Wang says, but “it’s kind of sad that we’re back to relying on the courts for voting rights.”

Harvey Wasserman adds, “It’s part of our American heritage that people have the right to vote, and we need to get people to come out to be poll workers,” and to make sure that potential voters aren’t intimidated.

And Tova Wang points out that “we were all excited with a 61 percent turnout in 2008. That’s terrible.”

“The problem in this country is that not enough people vote. Let’s talk about what we’re going to do about that, which is the real crisis in our democracy.”

Rag Radio, which has aired since September 2009, is produced in association with The Rag Blog, a progressive internet newsmagazine, and the New Journalism Project, a Texas 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

The host and producer of Rag Radio is Rag Blog editor and long-time alternative journalist Thorne Dreyer, a pioneer of the Sixties underground press movement. Tracey Schulz is the show’s engineer and co-producer.

All Rag Radio shows are posted as podcasts and can be found at the Internet Archive.

Rag Radio can be contacted at ragradio@koop.org.

Coming up on Rag Radio:
THIS FRIDAY, October 12, 2012: Peace and Justice activist Tom Hayden speaks on “The Peace Movement, the Drug War, and the Legacy of Port Huron.”
October 19, 2012: Singer-Songwriter, Satirist, Mystery Writer, and Politician Kinky Friedman.
October 26, 2012: Historian Martin Duberman, author of Howard Zinn: A Life on the Left.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged Election Theft, Harvey Wasserman, Interview, Podcast, Rag Radio, Thorne Dreyer, Tova Andrea Wang, Voter Fraud, Voter Suppression | Leave a comment

Jack A. Smith : Obama and Romney Differ Little on Foreign Policy

Posted on October 11, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Obama and Romney: Birds of a feather? Caricature by DonkeyHotey.
Birds of a feather?
Obama and Romney have
similar views on foreign policy

The back and forth between the candidates on international issues is largely about appearance, not substance.

By Jack A. Smith | The Rag Blog | October 11, 2012

Despite the sharp charges and counter-charges about foreign/military and national security policy there are no important differences on such matters between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney. The back and forth between the candidates on international issues is largely about appearance, not substance.

The Washington Post noted Sept. 26 that the two candidates “made clear this week that they share an overriding belief — American political and economic values should triumph in the world.” Add to that uplifting phrase the implicit words “by any means necessary,” and you have the essence of Washington’s international endeavors.

There are significant differences within the GOP’s right wing factions — from neoconservatives and ultra nationalists to libertarians and traditional foreign policy pragmatic realists — that make it extremely difficult for the Republicans to articulate a comprehensive foreign/military policy. This is why Romney confines himself to criticizing Obama’s international record without elaborating on his own perspective, except to imply he would do everything better than the incumbent.

Only nuances divide the two ruling parties on the principal strategic international objectives that determine the development of policy. Washington’s main goals include:

Retaining worldwide “leadership,” a euphemism for geopolitical hegemony.
Maintaining the unparalleled military power required to crush any other country, using all means from drones to nuclear weapons. This is made clear in the incumbent administration’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and the January 2012 strategic defense guidance titled, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.”
Containing the rise of China’s power and influence, not only globally but within its own East Asian regional sphere of influence, where the U.S. still intends to reign supreme. Obama’s “pivot” to Asia is part of Washington’s encirclement of China militarily and politically through its alliances with key Asian-Pacific allies. In four years, according to the IMF, China’s economy will overtake that of the U.S. — and Washington intends to have its fleets, air bases, troops, and treaties in place for the celebration.
Exercising decisive authority over the entire resource-rich Middle East and adjacent North Africa. Only the Iranian and Syrian governments remain to be toppled. (Shia Iraq, too, if it gets too close to Iran.)
Provoking regime change in Iran through crippling sanctions intended to wreck the country’s economy and, with Israel, threats of war. There is no proof Iran is constructing a nuclear weapon.
Seeking regime change in Syria, Shia Iran’s (and Russia’s) principal Arab ally. Obama is giving political and material support to fractious rebel forces in the civil war who are also supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. The U.S. interest is in controlling the replacement regime.
Weakening and isolating Russia as it develops closer economic and political ties to China, and particularly when it expresses opposition to certain of Washington’s less savory schemes, such as continuing to expand NATO, seeking to crush Iran and Syria, and erecting anti-missile systems in Europe. In 20 years, NATO has been extended from Europe to Central Asia, adjacent to China and former Soviet republics.
Continuing the over 50-year Cold War economic embargo, sanctions, and various acts of subversion against Cuba in hopes of destroying socialism in that Caribbean Island nation.
Recovering at least enough hegemony throughout Latin America — nearly all of which the U.S. dominated until perhaps 15 years ago — to undermine or remove left wing governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador.
Significantly increasing U.S. military engagement in Africa.

Both the right/far right Republican Party and the center right Democratic Party agree on these goals, although their language to describe them is always decorated with inspiring rhetoric about the triumph of American political and economic values; about spreading democracy and good feeling; about protecting the American people from terrorism and danger.

Today’s foreign/military policy goals are contemporary adaptations of a consistent, bipartisan international perspective that began to take shape at the end of World War II in 1945. Since the implosion of the Soviet Union ended the 45-year Cold War two decades ago — leaving the U.S. with its imperialist ambitions as the single world superpower — Washington protects its role as “unipolar” hegemon like a hungry dog with a meaty bone.

The people of the United States have no influence over the fundamentals of Washington’s foreign/military objectives. Many Americans seem to have no idea about Washington’s actual goals. As far as a large number of voters are concerned the big foreign/military policy/national security issues in the election boil down to Iran’s dangerous nuclear weapon; the need to stand up for Israel; stopping China from “stealing” American jobs; and preventing a terrorist attack on America.

Since Romney has no foreign policy record, and he’ll probably do everything Obama would do only worse (and he probably won’t even win the election) we will concentrate mainly on Obama’s foreign/military policy and the pivot to China.

One reason is the ignorance of a large portion of voters about past and present history and foreign affairs. Another is that many people still entertain the deeply flawed myths about “American exceptionalism” and the “American Century.” Lastly, there’s round-the-clock government and mass media misinformation.

After decades of living within an aggressive superpower it is no oddity that even ostensibly informed delegates to the recent Republican and Democratic political conventions engaged in passionate mass chanting of the hyper-nationalist “USA!, USA!, USA!,” when they were whipped up by party leaders evoking the glories of killing Osama bin-Laden, patriotism, war, and the superiority of our way of life.

Since Romney has no foreign policy record, and he’ll probably do everything Obama would do only worse (and he probably won’t even win the election) we will concentrate mainly on Obama’s foreign/military policy and the pivot to China.

One of President Obama’s most important military decisions this year was a new strategic guidance for the Pentagon published January 5 in a 16-page document titled “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.”

The new doctrine is the response by the White House and Congress to the stagnant economy and new military considerations. It reduces the number of military personnel and expects to lower Pentagon costs over 10 years by $487 billion, as called for by the Budget Control Act of 2011. This amounts to a cut of almost $50 billion a year in an overall annual Pentagon budget of about $700 billion, and most of the savings will be in getting rid of obsolete equipment and in payrolls. This may all be reversed by Congress.

Introducing “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership” to the media, Obama declared:

As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints — we’ll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces. We’ll continue to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities that we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counterterrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, and the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access.

So, yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.

Following the president, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared:

As we shift the size and composition of our ground, air, and naval forces, we must be capable of successfully confronting and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing nature of warfare. Our strategy review concluded that the United States must have the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time.

We are not confronting, obviously, the threats of the past; we are confronting the threats of the 21st century. And that demands greater flexibility to shift and deploy forces to be able to fight and defeat any enemy anywhere. How we defeat the enemy may very well vary across conflicts. But make no mistake, we will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time.

The Congressional Research Service summarized five key points from the defense guidance, which it said was “written as a blueprint for the joint force of 2020.”

They are:

A shift in overall focus from winning today’s wars to preparing for future challenges.
A shift in geographical priorities toward the Asia and the Pacific region while retaining emphasis on the Middle East.
A shift in the balance of missions toward more emphasis on projecting power in areas in which U.S. access and freedom to operate are challenged by asymmetric means (“anti-access”) and less emphasis on stabilization operations, while retaining a full-spectrum force.
A corresponding shift in force structure, including reductions in Army and Marine Corps endstrength, toward a smaller, more agile force including the ability to mobilize quickly. [The Army plans to cut about 50,000 from a force of 570,000. In 2001 there were 482,000.]
A corresponding shift toward advanced capabilities including Special Operations Forces, new technologies such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and unmanned systems, and cyberspace capabilities.

Here are the new military priorities, according to Obama’s war doctrine (notice the omission of counter-insurgency, a previous favorite):

Engage in counterterrorism and irregular warfare.
Deter and defeat aggression.
Project power despite anti-access/area denial challenges.
Counter weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Operate effectively in cyberspace and space.
Maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.
Defend the homeland and provide support to civil authorities.
Provide a stabilizing presence.
Conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations.
Conduct humanitarian, disaster relief, and other operations.

In an article critical of the military and titled “A Leaner, More Efficient Empire,” progressive authors Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis wrote:

In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator drones, the U.S. military need no longer rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer — and poor foreigners abroad — will still be saddled with overblown military budgets and militaristic policies.

“Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow,” the president told reporters, “but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow.” In fact, he added with a touch of pride, it “will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration,” totaling more than $700 billion a year and accounting for about half of the average American’s income tax. So much for the Pentagon’s budget being slashed.

The Obama Administration’s so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, actually East and South Asia (including India) and the Indian Ocean area, was unveiled last fall — first in an article in Foreign Policy magazine by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton titled “America’s Pacific Century,” then with attendant fanfare by President Obama on his trip to Hawaii, Australia and Indonesia.

The “pivot” involves attempting to establish a U.S.-initiated free trade zone in the region, while also strengthening Washington’s ties with a number of existing allied countries, such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and India, among others. A few of these allies have sharp disagreements with China about claims to small islands in the South China Sea, a major waterway for trade and commerce. The U.S., while saying it is neutral, is siding with its allies on this extremely sensitive issue.

Over the months it has become clear that the principal element of the “pivot” is military, and the allies are meant to give the U.S. support and backing for whatever transpires.

The U.S. for decades has encircled China with military might — spy planes and satellites, Navy warships cruising with thousands of personnel nearby and in the South China Sea, 40,000 U.S. troops in Japan, 28,000 in South Korea, 500 in the Philippines, many thousands in Afghanistan, plus a number of Pacific island airbases.

This development cannot be separated from the increasing economic growth and potential of China in relation to the obvious beginning of America’s decline. Washington may remain the world hegemon for a couple of more decades — and Beijing is not taking one step in that direction and may never do so.

Now it turns out that the Navy is moving a majority of its cruisers, destroyers and aircraft carrier battle groups from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In addition old military bases in the region are being refurbished and new bases are under construction. Australia has granted Obama’s request to allow a Marine base to be established in Darwin to accommodate a force of 2,500 troops. Meanwhile Singapore has been prevailed upon to allow the berthing of four U.S. Navy ships at the entrance to the Malacca Straits, through which enter almost all sea traffic between the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, a key trade route.

An article in the September/October 2012 Foreign Affairs by Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, titled “The Sum of Beijing’s Fears,” paints a clear picture of American power on the coast of China:

U.S. military forces are globally deployed and technologically advanced, with massive concentrations of firepower all around the Chinese rim. The U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) is the largest of the United States’ six regional combatant commands in terms of its geographic scope and non-wartime manpower. PACOM’s assets include about 325,000 military and civilian personnel, along with some 180 ships and 1,900 aircraft.

To the west, PACOM gives way to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for an area stretching from Central Asia to Egypt. Before Sept. 11, 2001, CENTCOM had no forces stationed directly on China’s borders except for its training and supply missions in Pakistan. But with the beginning of the “war on terror,” CENTCOM placed tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan and gained extended access to an air base in Kyrgyzstan.

The operational capabilities of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific are magnified by bilateral defense treaties with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, and South Korea and cooperative arrangements with other partners. And to top it off, the United States possesses some 5,200 nuclear warheads deployed in an invulnerable sea, land, and air triad. Taken together, this U.S. defense posture creates what Qian Wenrong of the Xinhua News Agency’s Research Center for International Issue Studies has called a “strategic ring of encirclement.

An article in Foreign Policy last January by Clyde Prestowitz asked:

Why is the “pivot” a mistake? Because it presumes a threat where none exists but where the presumption could become a self-fulfilling prophecy and where others could deal with any threats should they arise in the future. Because it entails further expenditures far beyond what is necessary for effective defense of the United States and its interests. And because it reduces U.S. productive power, competitiveness, and long-term U.S. living standards by providing a kind of subsidy for the offshoring of U.S.-based production capacity.

This development cannot be separated from the increasing economic growth and potential of China in relation to the obvious beginning of America’s decline. Washington may remain the world hegemon for a couple of more decades — and Beijing is not taking one step in that direction and may never do so. (Beijing seems to prefer a multipolar world leadership of several nations and regional blocs, as do a number of economically rising countries.)

“Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership,” as noted above, specified that the thrust of the Pentagon’s attention has now shifted to Asia. The most recent Quadrennial Defense Review already has informally identified China as a possible nation-state aggressor against which America must defend itself. The U.S. claims it is not attempting to contain China, but why the military buildup? It cannot be aimed at any other country in the region but China. Why also in his convention acceptance speech did Obama brag that “We’ve reasserted our power across the Pacific and stood up to China on behalf of our workers.”

The U.S. evidently is developing war games against China. On Aug. 2 John Glaser wrote in Antiwar.com:

The Pentagon is drawing up new plans to prepare for an air and sea war in Asia, presumably against China, in the Obama administration’s most belligerent manifestation yet of the so-called pivot to Asia-Pacific…. New war strategies called “Air-Sea Battle” reveal Washington’s broader goals in the region,” including a possible war.

The August 1 Washington Post reported that in the games “Stealthy American bombers and submarines would knock out China’s long-range surveillance radar and precision missile systems located deep inside the country. The initial ‘blinding campaign’ would be followed by a larger air and naval assault.”

Both candidates have opportunistically interjected China-bashing into their campaigns, second only to Iran-bashing. Obama has several times told working class audiences that China is stealing their jobs. Romney fumes about China’s alleged currency “cheating.” Republican former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sharply criticized both candidates October 3 for “appealing to American suspicions of China in their campaigns.”

Kissinger, whose recent book On China we recommend, also wrote a piece in the March-April Foreign Affairs titled “The Future of U.S.-Chinese Relations — Conflict Is a Choice, Not a Necessity” that injects an element of understanding into the matter.

The American debate, on both sides of the political divide, often describes China as a “rising power” that will need to “mature” and learn how to exercise responsibility on the world stage. China, however, sees itself not as a rising power but as a returning one, predominant in its region for two millennia and temporarily displaced by colonial exploiters taking advantage of Chinese domestic strife and decay.

It views the prospect of a strong China exercising influence in economic, cultural, political, and military affairs not as an unnatural challenge to world order but rather as a return to normality. Americans need not agree with every aspect of the Chinese analysis to understand that lecturing a country with a history of millennia about its need to “grow up” and behave “responsibly” can be needlessly grating.

Clearly, the Obama Administration is opposed to modern China even becoming “predominant in its region” once again, much less in the world. At this stage Washington is predominant in East Asia, and between its military power and subordinate regional allies it is not prepared to move over even within China’s own sphere. No one can predict how this will play out in 20 or 30 years, of course.

[Jack A. Smith was editor of the Guardian — for decades the nation’s preeminent leftist newsweekly — that closed shop in 1992. Smith now edits the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter. Read more articles by Jack A. Smith on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged 2012 Elections, American Hegemony, China, Imperialism, Jack A. Smith, Mitt Romney, Obama Foreign Policy, U.S. Military | 1 Comment

Posted on October 11, 2012 by Thorne Dreyer

Type your summary here

Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Harry Targ : From the Bay of Pigs to the Missile Crisis / 3

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman : Will E-Voting Machines in Ohio Give Romney the Election?

BOOKS / Ron Jacobs : Aaron Dixon’s ‘My People Are Rising’

Marilyn Katz : What Every Woman Should Know (About Paul Ryan)

James McEnteer : I Drank the Booze Today, Oh Boy

Huw Beynon and Steve Davies : Bruce Springsteen Brings on the Wrecking Ball

Tom Hayden : Dark-Skinned Democracy Wins in Venezuela

RAG RADIO / Thorne Webb Dreyer : Tova Andrea Wang & Harvey Wasserman on Voter Suppression in America

Jack A. Smith : Obama and Romney Differ Little on Foreign Policy

SEARCH

TAGS

RECENT POSTS

SUSAN VAN HAITSMA / CULTURE / Down on the Drag: Austin Music History

ALICE EMBREE / MEDICARE / Taking on the Medicare Disadvantage

AUSPOP / CULTURE / Retrospective of Underground Comix Pioneer Gilbert Shelton

ALLEN YOUNG / OPINION / June: From shame to pride

BRUCE MELTON: UNGINEERING, Not Geoengineering

ALICE EMBREE / MAY DAY! MAY DAY!

ALICE EMBREE / HISTORY / Where on earth was The Rag?

JAN LANCE / RETIREES / Senior Solidarity

MICHAEL MEEROPOL / FOREIGN POLICY / Trump's War of Choice

LAMAR HANKINS / FARMWORKERS / Another civil rights icon who had feet of clay

ALICE EMBREE / REVIEW / Reading C. Wright Mills in the Age of Trump

LAMAR HANKINS / RELIGION / Make America's public school children bible-readers again

JONAH RASKIN / BOOK REVIEW / Dangerous, Dirty, Violent, and Young: A Fugitive Family in the Revolutionary Underground

ROXANN WEDEGARTNER / BOOK REVIEW / From the Octagon: People, Places, News, Views by Allen Young.

DAVE ZIRIN / CULTURE / Bad Bunny Steals the Show

ARCHIVES