The Danger of Trump: A Debate

  • Posted on: 27 September 2016
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

From Black Rose Federation

In advance of tonight’s Clinton versus Trump presidential debate Black Rose/Rosa Negra presents a debate our own on how we see this political moment. We also want to know your thoughts and encourage you to leave them in the comments here or on our facebook page.

The Danger of Trump?

The question is: Does the possibility of a Trump presidency represent an unprecedented danger to the left and social movements in the US such as Black Lives Matter and others? Will a Trump presidency unleash a floodgate of racism and white nationalism that is deeply embedded into his campaign? Or, are these sentiments exaggerated as Trump stands a slim chance of actually winning given that much of the ruling class and “deep state” are adamantly opposed to the unpredictable and bad-for-business antics of Trump? And do these fears serve to drive the left into supporting the Democrats out of fear and emboldening their rightward shift and neo-liberal policy that lays the groundwork for reaction?

We present articles by two sharp left writers that have been publishing some of the best analysis on the current election cycle from critical and anti-capitalist perspectives. The first is by radical journalist Arun Gupta and argues the first set of questions above, essentially that “The Left should take the Trump threat very seriously.” The second is by author Paul Street which argues the later set of questions above and is in response to Gupta. Although we do not support Street’s advocacy for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, him as well as Gupta offer strong points that we should debate and consider.

The Debate

“How a Trump Presidency Would Unleash a Torrent of Racist Violence – And Devastate the Left” by Arun Gupta:

“[A]n authoritarian strongman like Trump is such a threat, there is an urgent need to defend people of color and social movements from the violent white nationalists now riding his coattails and who will shape his White House agenda. … This is not a call to stop criticizing Clinton or to abandon independent organizing and shunt that energy into the Clinton campaign. That must continue without pause, but taking a second to cast a vote to stop Trumpism from taking state power will benefit that organizing enormously.”

“Keep Calm and Vote Green: Fascism Is Not Coming” by Paul Street:

“[T]he American corporate, financial and imperial ruling class doesn’t yet need or want real or quasi-fascism through Herr Trump or anyone else at this historical moment. The U.S. model of corporate-managed and “inverted totalitarianism” sold as “democracy” is not about strongmen and brown shirts. … Neofascism is simply not where the American ruling class is right now. When it is, we will know. If and when it gets there, it will put forward a far more serious and capable frontman than the preposterous Donald … The “deep state” has zero interest in the riotous instability that would result from Trump’s election and inauguration.”

 

 


UP FOR DEBATE: The Lesser Evil

- Arun Gupta

HOW A TRUMP PRESIDENCY WOULD UNLEASH A TORRENT OF RACIST VIOLENCE—AND DEVASTATE THE LEFT
The Left should take the Trump threat very seriously.

BY ARUN GUPTA
SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
TO GIN UP PROGRESSIVE VOTES FOR CENTER-RIGHT CANDIDATES, DEMOCRATS CRY WOLF EVERY FOUR YEARS: “This is the most important election ever! If the Republican wins, the world will come to an end!” Understandably, progressives who feel burned by this routine have joined the “Never Hillary” camp. And it’s hard to disagree when Clinton rubs elbows with neocons, Wall Street bankers and Henry Kissinger.

But the moral of the fable is this: The wolf eventually shows up—and no one takes the threat seriously.

This is the case with Donald Trump, who is all too easy to dismiss as inept, a clown, clueless, and more interested in the trappings of power than the details of policies.

However much truth there is to all this, it masks a grim reality. As president, Trump would launch an all-out war on social progress.

Those who think the ruling class will restrain him ignore that it has been unable to stop him thus far. Trump’s own party couldn’t do it. And despite Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and the corporate media all lining up behind Clinton, Trump is gaining in the polls. Given his disdains for any laws, norms or rules, he would make the Bush era look like a paragon of probity and judiciousness.

And he’ll have momentum on his side. If Trump wins, he will probably carry enough Senate candidates with him to retain GOP control of both houses of Congress. More sobering, a Trump victory would embolden white nationalists, giving them access to vast state power and resources and a White House that would downplay or ignore their violent excesses. Trump has bundled together many branches of racism into a proto-fascist movement hell-bent on the ethnic cleansing of America by eliminating Muslims and many immigrants through walls, bans, barriers and deportations.

Movements that have emerged or gained strength during the Obama years, such as Black Lives Matter, immigrant-rights “Dreamers,” the climate justice movement, and low-wage worker and reinvigorated labor campaigns would be devastated. All that work would be crushed or abandoned as activists desperately try to defend the millions in Trump’s crosshairs.

This is an especially painful election because I, like many, have despised the Clintons since their racist 1992 campaign, and through their ensuing record of free-trade deals, assaults on social welfare, war, mass incarceration, pro-police and anti-immigrant policies, coziness with Wall Street, mendacity, and corruption.

But this is a case, as Adolph Reed puts it, when it’s essential to “Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger.” This is not a call to back Clinton’s policies; it’s a recognition that an authoritarian strongman like Trump is such a threat, there is an urgent need to defend people of color and social movements from the violent white nationalists now riding his coattails and who will shape his White House agenda.

Think of it this way. If a doctor says you are dying of cancer and only radiation therapy will save you, that doesn’t mean you suddenly think the nuclear power industry is great. But you’ll take the treatment. On November 9, the day after the election, the Left should redouble the real political work of building independent mass movements and working against the right-wing elements of Clinton’s agenda.

This is not a call to stop criticizing Clinton or to abandon independent organizing and shunt that energy into the Clinton campaign. That must continue without pause, but taking a second to cast a vote to stop Trumpism from taking state power will benefit that organizing enormously.

While Clinton, like Obama, is no friend of social movements, Democratic presidents must pay them lip service because they are the party’s base. To Trump and his supporters, especially the Alt Right he has embraced, the Left is public enemy number one. He would crush progressive movements and overturn many of the hard-fought and partial victories over the last eight years, while rampaging across the planet with no check.

Think about all the damage Trump would do, far beyond what Clinton is capable of.

Last decade, under President Bush, the FBI designated the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front a “serious terrorist threat,” ending these movements. The right is clamoring for the same designation for Black Lives Matter, and Trump will happily oblige, effectively outlawing the movement to end police violence and structural racism.

Obama’s halting steps to mitigate climate change would be reversed as Trump opens up lands and coasts to oil, coal and gas industry plunder, and pulls out of international agreements to reduce carbon emissions. He would likely send the National Guard to bulldoze the climate justice movement blockading oil pipelines, trains and terminals, along with the indigenous communities defending their lands. His platform calls for overturning rules favoring renewable energy. All this would be a prelude to gifting tens of millions of acres of federal lands and monuments to mining, grazing, logging, and energy interests. The Right, especially the Koch Brothers, has been pushing hard for this for years, and Trump is unlikely to stand in their way.

In many areas, Trump is turning over policy to extremists. He has pledged to defund Planned Parenthood, he will no doubt stack courts with judges who will further erode if not strike down reproductive rights, and he has allied with fundamentalist Christian forces eager to overturn all the recent LGBT victories.

The Obamacare coverage millions of Americans received, while inadequate, would be wiped out under Trump and replaced with purely market-based measures, while Medicaid would be gutted through a conversion to block grants. There would be no plan to end the student debt cycle for millions, which is the one big concession Bernie Sanders extracted from Clinton.

Under Trump and an attorney general like Rudy Giuliani, cops would have a free hand to brutalize Black and brown people. There will be no more federal scrutiny of police violence, no more investigations, or consent decrees with police departments. Indeed, Trump has recently endorsed “stop-and-frisk” policing, which was abandoned in his hometown of New York City after a judge determined the practice unconstitutionally targeted Black men and Latinos. With a right-wing Supreme Court, voter suppression would also become the norm to solidify overt white nationalist rule for a generation.

African-Americans are well aware of the risks Trump poses and how he has stirred old racist demons. This is why Trump is getting zero percent African-American support in some polls. While Trumpism will linger even if he loses, and white nationalists remain dangerous, they would also be demoralized, with the movement splintering and descending into infighting rather than having a door thrown open to the most powerful entity in the world: the U.S. government.

As we know, Trump has called to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants and “build a wall”—a plan so outrageous that it has overshadowed many of his other radical proposals. Trump has vowed to kill Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that provides protection from deportation for up to 1.7 million undocumented immigrant youth, He aims to bar federal funds to cities with sanctuary programs. He wants to curb even legal programs for foreign workers and slash the share of all immigrants in America to “moderate historical averages,” which, based on statistics in an article linked on his website, would mean a two-thirds reduction, or expelling 27 million immigrants.

This is only the half of it. If Trump slaps tariffs on imports, deports millions, and gives huge tax breaks the wealthy, Moody’s paints a dire scenario of declining home prices, 3.5 million jobs lost, and a downturn outlasting the Great Recession. If he also roils relations with Europe, the Middle East, and Asia that will further cripple the economy. As much as free trade harms workers and the environment, once an economy is hooked on it, you can’t just pull the plug. We have to be weaned off slowly while supply chains and networks are rebuilt.

Put it all together: a white America angered by fewer jobs and declining income, a campaign that has brought together neo-Confederates, white nationalists and Neo-Nazis (and emboldened the Klan to openly recruit), and there will be a hunt for scapegoats. Trump will deliver them because his candidacy was born in a sewer of racism, beginning with birtherism.

This could include a ban on Muslim immigration, a registration program, police invasions of Latino communities, or mass round-ups—which would mean concentration camps to hold immigrants before they were forced out, overseen by his “deportation force” of Brownshirts.

There is a quaint notion on the Left that somehow Trump is hot air. This ignores the dynamics he's set in motion that will make new types of state-sponsored racial violence all but inevitable. This is not just a quantitative change over Obama and Clinton, but a qualitative one.

This is a man who wants to fling around nukes, kill the families of terrorists, conduct mass racial profiling, and enact torture “a lot worse than waterboarding.” Millions approve when he calls for the assassination of his opponents and mass ethnic cleansing.

But nattering leftists on social media go to Trumpian extremes to downplay the threat. They have an unbelievable faith in the ruling class to hold back Trump. They think if Trump takes power, terrible racist violence will spur incredible mass movements. Of course, if extreme violence alone could kickstart a proletariat revolution, half the world would be in open rebellion. Rather, these Facebook revolutionaries are willing, even eager, to see new forms of extremism unleashed on untold millions inside and outside the United States because they’ve burrowed so deep into rotted-out political clichés, they can’t see the threat before them.

For those not drowning in the dogma, but focused on making social change in the real world, this election poses as stark a choice as there ever was.

Do you want to see movements like Black Lives Matter, Climate Justice, low-wage workers, immigrant rights, and other left social forces continue to grow and develop? Or do you want to see a Trump administration carry out ethnic cleansing as it sets loose armed white nationalists?

It’s that simple.

ARUN GUPTA is a graduate of the French Culinary Institute in New York and has written for publications including the Washington Post, The Nation, Salon, and the Guardian. He is the author of Bacon as a Weapon of Mass Destruction: A Junk-Food-Loving Chef’s Inquiry into Taste (The New Press).


Keep Calm and Vote Green: Fascism Is Not Coming

- Paul Street

Thinking about the upcoming United States presidential election contest between two of the most widely hated people in the nation, I am reminded of the old Aesop’s fable about “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly fools his village neighbors into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock.

The first few times he does this, the villagers come running to drive off the imaginary wolf. Finally, a real wolf actually appears, and the boy again calls for help. But the villagers believe it is another false alarm and stay put. The sheep are eaten by the wolf. In some later versions of the fable, the boy himself is devoured.

READ: Jill Stein’s Green New Deal Deserves to Heard by Widest Audience Possible

The moral of the story is stated at the end of the Greek version: This shows how liars are rewarded—even if they tell the truth, no one believes them. As Aristotle is supposed to have said, when those who tell lies “speak truth, they are not believed.”

Every four years, liberal-left politicos scream wolf about how the Republicans are going to wreak plutocratic, racist, ecocidal, sexist, repressive and war-mongering hell if they win “this, the most important election in American history.” The politicos conveniently ignore the plutocratic, racist, ecocidal, sexist, repressive and military-imperial havoc that Democrats inflict at home and abroad in dark, co-dependent alliance with the ever more radically reactionary Republicans. Democrats fail to acknowledge their preferred party’s responsibility for sustaining the Republicans’ continuing power, which feeds on the “dismal” Dems’ neoliberal abandonment of the nation’s working-class majority in service to transnational Wall Street and corporate America. They commonly exaggerate the danger posed by the right-most major party and (especially) the progressivism of the not-so-left-most one.

It’s not that the liberal and progressive politicos lie about the presence of wolves. The wolves are out there. But they include Democratic wolves in fake sheep’s clothing joined with Republicans in what Washington journalist Mark Leibovich calls “the ultimate Green Party.” The nation’s capital, Leibovich notes, has “become a determinedly bipartisan team when there is money to be made. … ‘No Democrats and Republicans in Washington anymore,’ goes the maxim, ‘only millionaires.’ ”

LISTEN: Robert Scheer Speaks With Jill Stein About the Green Party and 2016 Election

It’s nothing new, which is part of why I have third-party-protest-voted in all but one (2004) of the nine U.S. presidential elections for which I have been eligible. This includes two of the last three, the only ones in which I have voted in a “contested state” (Iowa)—a state where the major-party outcome is in play.

So why might a serious left progressive living in a contested state (someone like this writer) consider following the venerable left political scientist Adolph Reed Jr.’s advice this year to “vote for the lying neoliberal warmonger” Hillary Clinton? Part of it could be that lefty’s sense that it is better for “the U.S. Left” (insofar as it exists) and the development of the dedicated, day-to-day, grass-roots social movement we desperately need in place beneath and beyond the election cycle when a corporate Democrat occupies the White House. The presence of a Democrat in the nominal top U.S. job is usefully instructive. It helps demonstrate the richly bipartisan nature of the American plutocracy and empire. Young workers and students especially need to see and experience how the misery and oppression imposed by capitalism and its evil twin imperialism live on when Democrats hold the Oval Office.

At the same time, the presence of a Republican in the White House tends to fuel the sense among progressives and liberals that the main problem in the country is that the “wrong party” holds executive power and that all energy and activism must be directed at fixing that by putting the “right party” back in. Everything progressive gets sucked into a giant “Get Out the Vote” project for the next faux-progressive Democratic savior, brandishing the promises of “hope” and “change” (campaign keywords for the neoliberal imperialist Bill Clinton in 1992 and the neoliberal imperialist Barack Obama in 2008).

Hillary will be much less capable than the more charismatic Obama (under whom there has been more popular organizing and protest than some lefties like to acknowledge) of bamboozling progressives into thinking they’ve got a friend in the White House. Unlike Obama in 2008, she’s got a long corporatist and imperialist track record that connects her to the establishment and is hard to deny.

WATCH: What Makes Jill Stein Qualified to Be President

It is an urban myth that Republican presidents spark and energize progressive and left activism. True, they’ve done outrageous things that can put lots of folks in the streets for a bit. One thinks of Richard Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia and Bush Jr.’s invasion of Iraq. But the waves of protest recede, followed by repression, and everything tends to get channeled into the holy electoral quest to put Democrats back in executive-branch power. The second George W. Bush term was no activist heyday, thanks in significant measure to the great co-optive and demobilizing impact of Democratic Party electoral politics and the deceptive, not-so “antiwar” Obama phenomenon.

But the main reason it is easy to understand why many intelligent lefties stuck behind contested state lines might follow Reed’s advice is that Trump is no ordinary Republican wolf. By some dire portside reckonings (including Reed’s), “the Donald” is something like a real fascist threat worthy of mention in the same breath as Hitler and Mussolini. He’s a really bad version of the wolf who finally appears to devour the sheep in the ancient fable. Look at the following semi-viral jeremiad recently posted across “social media” by the longtime left journalist Arun Gupta—a spine-chilling reflection on what he fears a Trump presidency would mean:

I know it’s the fifth anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, but there is little to celebrate at such a grim moment. That being the likelihood Trump may very well win.
Black Lives Matter will be declared a domestic terrorist outfit. … Trump and Attorney General [Rudy] Giuliani would relish using the National Guard to crush blockades of oil pipelines and trains, and indigenous people defending their lands.

An English-only law would likely be passed, DACA be withdrawn, and sanctuary cities outlawed. White supremacists, Neo-Nazis, the Klan, and the Alt-Right would all be welcome into his administration, overtly or covertly.

There would be an all-out assault on reproductive rights and Planned Parenthood. Significant gains made at the National Labor Relations Board in the last few years will be overturned.

Huge swaths of the West under federal control will be turned over to logging, ranching, mining, and oil and gas industries.

Tens of millions would go from inadequate healthcare to no healthcare.

… Massive voter suppression becomes the norm. There will be organized vigilante violence, perhaps even mini-pogroms, against Muslim and Mexican communities with the state turning a blind eye.

…As soon as a recession hits, Trump would immediately go hunting for scapegoats to distract his followers. This could include a ban on Muslim immigration, a registration program, and mass round-ups of immigrants, meaning concentration camps to hold them before they were ousted, overseen by his ‘deportation force’ of Brownshirts.

There is a quaint notion on the left that somehow Trump is hot air. This ignores the dynamics he’s set in motion that will make new types of state-sponsored racial violence all but inevitable. … all the recent organizing gains will wither as the left is forced to wage losing defensive struggles against violent white nationalists. ...

… there is a bizarre faith on the left that the ruling class will somehow keep him in check, despite the fact he will have control over every branch of government. …No one will be able to stop his dictatorial, white supremacist agenda. Congress won’t stop him. He will have a majority on the Supreme Court, and while sections of the ruling class may be deeply unhappy, they will still be safe and obscenely wealthy and can always escape.

In warning about Trump and instructing lefties not to vote third-party this time, Reed reminds us of the German Community Party’s fateful error: choosing not to ally with the German Social Democrats against the Nazi Party during the early 1930s. The moral of the story is clear: All sane left progressives need to report to duty to protect the flock under the banner of the admittedly horrid (good of Reed to admit that) Hillary.

When I posted Gupta’s petrifying ponderings on Facebook, numerous online lefties immediately denounced it as standard, wolf-crying Democratic Party “scaremongering” and “Clintonist hyperbole.” I do not so reflexively dismiss Gupta’s alarm or that of other leading left intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Henry Giroux. There is more than just a slight hint of neofascism around the Trump phenomenon—not just in the bizarre Trump (who used to keep a copy of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside) himself but in his worst backers and in his largely white middle- and lower-middle-class base, precisely the stratum that has offered the key base for virulent right-wing movements in Western history. A “law and order” President Trump (whose openly Nixonian, pro-police speech at the Republican National Convention promised that “safety will be restored” under his rule) could well try to unleash the nation’s vast surveillance and police state to crush dissent and popular protest on a chilling scale. His turn to the iron heel could receive sadly significant support from many angry Caucasians in a white-majority nation that ranks the military and the police as its two most popular institutions—and which tells pollsters that racism no longer poses significant barriers to black (and Latino and Native American) equality. A shocking number of “good [white] Americans” absurdly think the nation has been “under the control of the left” for the last eight years. It’s time, they think, “to take our country back” from, yes, “the left.”

WATCH: Truthdig Sits Down With the Green Party’s Jill Stein

Meanwhile, we could face a lethal climate policy disaster. In his recent speech to the Economic Club of New York, the climate change-denier Donald Trump promised to thoroughly deregulate energy production. A President Trump would boost the nation’s and world’s levels of coal, gas and oil extraction and carbon emission to a degree that could amount to what Chomsky calls “almost a death knell for the species.”

There’s more, of course, to whiten left hairs about the prospects of a Trump White House. A short list includes: Trump’s repeated claim that U.S. wages are too high (something that is all too well-matched to his real-world record of mercilessly exploiting and cheating workers); his call for big increases in the already hyperbloated Pentagon budget; his claim that “there’s nobody bigger or better at the military than me”; his call to expand the nuclear arsenal; his claim that he’d consider using nuclear weapons in Europe; his statement that the U.S. “may very well be better off” if Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia developed nuclear weapons; his boast that he’d “shoot” Iranian ships if they ever again interdict “our beautiful destroyers with their little boats”; his legitimization of the use of violence against protesters at his rallies; his ugly mocking of a disabled reporter (able-ism is a hallmark fascist movement); his long record of deeply disturbing misogyny.

And let’s not forget Trump’s bizarre rants about the supposed American scourge of “criminal alien” rapists and murderers, his insane racist charge that Mexico is sending such criminals into the U.S., and the truly crazy promise to build a great southern wall “and make Mexico pay for it.” Or that Trump’s recently installed campaign chief is the noxious Stephen Bannon, the director of Breitbart, an openly white nationalist, paranoid-style and conspiracy-oriented alt-right website that caters to some of the ugliest and neo- and proto-fascistic, anti-black, anti-Latino, anti-environmental, anti-feminist and anti-human sentiments imaginable. It is no wonder that an ugly swarm of neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Klansmen have flocked to Trump’s Make America Hate Again (and Like Never Before) rallies and cause.

Is all this enough to scare lots of left progressives into voting for “the arch-corporatist and Wall Street-sponsored neoliberal imperialist Hillary Clinton (a candidate whom Gupta has described as “right-wing fanatic” and “enemy of workers”) as the proverbial “lesser evil” in a contested state? Sure. For many lefties (this writer included), however, the Trump threat level does not rise that high. The wolf cry still falls on deaf ears. This is for at least six reasons.

READ: The Illusion of Freedom

First, ominous warnings from smart people notwithstanding, the American corporate, financial and imperial ruling class doesn’t yet need or want real or quasi-fascism through Herr Trump or anyone else at this historical moment. The U.S. model of corporate-managed and “inverted totalitarianism” (Sheldon Wolin) sold as “democracy” is not about strongmen and brown shirts. The notion that the nation’s “deep state” power elite—the actual rulers who run the nation’s commanding-heights affairs behind the marionette theater of electoral politics—would (a) let an uber-narcissistic man-child like Donald Trump into the Oval Office and (b) permit him to do the crazy things he talks about is far-fetched.

Neofascism is simply not where the American ruling class is right now. When it is, we will know. If and when it gets there, it will put forward a far more serious and capable frontman than the preposterous Donald—a man so uninterested in the actual work of ruling that he offered the “moderate” Republican John Kasich control over “domestic and foreign policy” in a Trump White House if Kasich would be his running mate. Trump’s ascendency to the White House could well portend a further chaotic delegitimization of “homeland” authority and a pervasive sense of societal absurdity (I’d be lying if I didn’t acknowledge that my anarchist streetfighter side would relish the installation of a commander in chief as completely absurd as Trump). Along with the humiliating black eye that a Trump White House would be for Uncle Sam on the global stage, this is something the American power elite has reason not to want. It would be bad for business—and for American-style business rule as usual.

Second, it is frankly comical to think of the ludicrous, soft-fleshed, silver-spooned draft-dodger and pampered television personality Donald Trump as some kind of neo-Fuhrer. He is seen as “unfit for command” by most top military commanders and is far too monumentally unpopular with the majority of citizens to ever rally enough masses to overcome the hostility he faces with the corporate and imperial establishment.

Third, the populace would not be as pathetically supine and powerless as Gupta imagines in response to the election and policies of a vicious clown like Trump. His selection and installment as U.S. president would be understood by tens of millions of Americans as an incredibly provocative development—provocative and dangerous enough to spark protests and mass mobilizations on a scale like nothing ever seen in American history. That, too, is part of what makes Trump a different kind of Republican wolf. I suggested above that ultra-left backlash theorists (folks who think “things have to get worse before they get better”) are wrong to assume that it’s better to have Republicans in the White House when it comes to sparking popular protest. Trump would be an exception to that rule. The “deep state” has zero interest in the riotous instability that would result from Trump’s election and inauguration.

Fourth, Trump’s not going to win. For all Hillary Clinton’s obvious terrible flaws as a candidate, the big insider cash, the national electoral demographics, and the Electoral College map (just ask Nate Silver and his team of multivariate election predictors at FiveThirtyEight.com) strongly favor her. Her health stumbles and some recent homeland terror attacks have, yes, boosted Trump in the polls recently. That will fade as cold campaign finance realities and corporate media bring the bipartisan ruling class’s long-chosen candidate Hillary to the moment she has literally craved for so long. The big and smart money is still on “the lying neoliberal warmonger.”

READ, WATCH, LISTEN: She’s No Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump—Behind the Scenes With Jill Stein

Fifth, the Green Party’s Party’s Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka are combining genuine social movement activism with an electoral campaign for a Green New Deal—a many-sided program that is much more than just another bit of progressive policy wonkery. It’s an existential necessity for a decent future, one that combines a giant livable ecology-saving program of national and energy and economic reconversion with a giant jobs program and universal health insurance paid for by genuinely progressive taxation (long overdue in “New Gilded Age” America) and massive reductions in the nation’s giant Pentagon System (which accounts for half the world’s military spending). How does any environmentally sentient and peace-advocating lefty not vote for all of that in the current age of savage inequality, rampant militarism, and ever-more imminent eco-catastrophe?

Sixth, “lesser-evil voting” (LEV) has a “terrible track record,” as Stein reminded me last spring. The more American liberals and progressives do it, the more the Republican right wing is emboldened, the further the Democrats move into ideological and policy territory formerly held by Republicans, and the more dire the American and global situation becomes. LEV is a viciously circular, self-fulfilling prophecy that itself holds no small responsibility for the ascendancy of horrible Republican presidents and other terrible things like the tea party and Donald Trump phenomena. And one does not seriously challenge LEV only in so-called safe states. You have to draw some lines in the sand and exit left at some point: Protect the flock.

I am not so inured to the quasi-neofascistic evil of the Trump phenomenon and the ugly prospects of a Trump presidency—especially on the ecological level—that I cannot understand why many fellow leftists would mark a ballot for the hideous imperial corporatist Hillary Clinton to block Herr Trump. The intra-left bloodletting that takes place on a regular quadrennial schedule over the difficult question of how best to respond to the United States’ plutocratic electoral and party system certainly does not serve the progressive left cause. Let us join together after the latest quadrennial extravaganza to build and expand a great popular movement with a list of demands and the introduction of an election and party system that deserves passionate citizen engagement.

category: 

Comments

There is zero chance of a Trump victory. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who has been closely following exactly what the thinstream media is NOT reporting, that the fix is in, and the puppet masters want Clinton whatever the cost.

Furthermore, even in a parallel dimension where Trump was elected, he would not be able to enact most of his policies anyway.

Now, let's see a piece that addresses the dangers of a Clinton presidency.

Whoever becomes President, the US is fucked.

Living in Canada, I sometimes feel sorry for you folks south of the border. We have our problems too, but comparatively speaking, America is just a gong show right now.

"he would not be able to enact most of his policies anyway."

Yep. And that's why I'm dreaming of Trump to get elected, as he'd just be the biggest farce in US prez history. while making the government fight against itself. Perfect scenario.

"he would not be able to enact most of his policies anyway."

It's not clear to me Trump has "his" policies. But if Trump is elected, and both houses of Congress continue to be controlled by the Republicans, the policies that will get passed will be what ever the Republicans can all agree on -- and remember over 30 state government are majority controlled by Republicans, and only a handful of states are majority controlled by Democrats, so with only a few exceptions they have vastly more power there, which will help them too.

Trump doesn't care about specific policies that much, and has proven himself more than willing to compromise severely with what ever other Republicans want. So unless there is a major balance of power shift in the Congress, if he's elected you'll probably see these kind of policies passed:

-- massive, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and massive entitlement cuts for the rest

-- severe limits on abortion access, possibly to the point that it is effectively unavailable in most of the country

-- massive ramp up on fossil fuel burning and climate change, rather than the minor taper currently going on

-- giving most federal public lands to state governments who will then sell them off to logging, mining and oil companies (which will be even worse than how they're managed now)

-- total cut off of all immigration of non-whites into the country

-- boots on the ground and possibly nuclear war in Iraq and Syria

I'm pretty sure agreement could be reached between Trump and most of the Fox News-Alex Jones-Milo Yiannopolous-type crowd that controls the GOP on all that...but it's not nearly as likely if he loses...

That's not to mention all the vigilante violence that's likely to come from his supporters who believe that once he's elected they can "lynch all the niggers" and "hunt Jews in the street" (as they say again and again and again) and who expect him to start disappearing leftists like Pinochet...just saying...

Basically a Trump-Pence regime will seek to turn the whole country into the same kind of shithole as Indiana...and then some...

re: "if he's elected you'll probably see these kind of policies passed:"

"-- massive, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and massive entitlement cuts for the rest"

So? This is nothing new, and nothing that Democrats haven't done, including Clinton I.

What's more, as this is ostensibly a radical site, NOT a reformist liberal one, what do we care about tax? The rich will always shaft the poor, that's what government is there for.

"severe limits on abortion access, possibly to the point that it is effectively unavailable in most of the country"

Good. I'm not a supporter of murdering unborn children anyway.

"massive ramp up on fossil fuel burning and climate change, rather than the minor taper currently going on"

If you think that the candidate you elect affects the overall trend on environmental degradation, I really don't know what to say. The consistent pattern is for more and more 'development'. In fact, capitalism depends on unlimited growth anyway. As someone who is pro-collapse, I think that until things start to really disintegrate, people won't seriously challenge the industrial system.

"giving most federal public lands to state governments who will then sell them off to logging, mining and oil companies (which will be even worse than how they're managed now)"

This also has nothing to do with who is elected.

"total cut off of all immigration of non-whites into the country"

Will never happen.

"boots on the ground and possibly nuclear war in Iraq and Syria"

Believe me, if it is decided that this will go ahead, it matters not a jot who is in the White House. Look at the track record of foreign policy under democratic POTUS.

Seriously, whether the Red Team or the Blue Team holds the office, the kind of decisions that you're talking about are made behind closed doors in unelected committees anyway.

"That's not to mention all the vigilante violence that's likely to come from his supporters who believe that once he's elected they can "lynch all the niggers" and "hunt Jews in the street" (as they say again and again and again) and who expect him to start disappearing leftists like Pinochet...just saying..."

And you mock Alex Jones? Get real.

LR one of the things that recurs a lot in primitive society is infanticide. Really abortion is a technological continuum of that. There's also nothing inherently special about human life that makes abortion any sort of big deal.

Bingo. Hats off to you, SirEinzige.

What are your citations? Not that I haven't heard this claim before, but I traced them into recursive loops, none culminating in a proper study.

Daniel Everett describes it firsthand, including his being upset about it, in Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes.

OK, I believe Everett. So that's one group. Any others?

A "anarchist" who wants the state to ban abortion access. I call bullshit. Die fascist.

So let me get this straight - now our resident anti-immigration neo-monarchist is against abortion?

Just keep telling yourselves that this site isn't being infiltrated by the alt-right.

- Because I dislike the idea of GOVERNMENTS stealing money and using it to house people from thousands of miles away, for the PROFIT of private landowners, I'm 'anti-immigration'.

- Because I cited ONE argument made against democracy (a form of GOVERNMENT), that just so happened to come from a book that also contained other arguments COMPARING monarchy with democracy, I'm a "neo-monarchist".

Just keep telling yourselves that your beloved 'milieu' isn't overrun with social democrats and statists.

- Because I dislike the idea of GOVERNMENTS stealing money and using it to house people from thousands of miles away, for the PROFIT of private landowners, I'm 'anti-immigration'.

That wasn't your reasoning the last time you were called on it, and it doesn't really make much sense either. Regardless of your shitty rationalizations, it's the fact that you're against immigration (Syrian Refugees in particular) that makes you "anti-immigrant". Supporting the exclusion of any people from a nation state's lands based on their nation state of origin is, surprise, a fucking statist attitude.

Because I cited ONE argument made against democracy (a form of GOVERNMENT), that just so happened to come from a book that also contained other arguments COMPARING monarchy with democracy, I'm a "neo-monarchist".

Not because you "cited it", but because you recommended that every anarchist read it (your words). And yeah, maybe he's somewhere between an AnCap and a neo-monarchist, but it isn't like there's much of a difference. It's still not fucking anarchist in any way, shape or form.

One of these days these goofs are gonna suggest, with lots of flowery pomo-philosophy, that the only really "anarchist" thing to do is get down on our knees and suck the dick of every cop, politician and businessperson we can find, and that's gonna be taken seriously because we're all too afraid of defining "anarchy" to say no.

I don't care what your motivation is for twisting my words, but I presume it's because you want to protect your shiny totem of 'One True Anarchism', which includes removing unsavoury outsiders from getting too close to said totem.

1. Immigration. You're saying I've changed my tune? Trying to impugn me? Why? Anyone that gives enough of a shit to go back and look will find that I was saying the same then as I'm saying now: immigration as is currently happening is not contra-statism, it depends ON it. Syrians aren't going to risk death escaping to Greece and then walking thousands of miles to get to places like the UK and Germany if, when they get there, they will just starve to death. This process is enabled with stolen money, which ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians and robber baron landlords. The refugees are being exploited, the taxpayers of the host 'countries' are being filched. No one you pretend to have any sympathies for is winning here.

What's more, it is a situation that is being forced on people. If you are an anarchist, you are supposed to be against governments and other heterons forcing people to do things. If they came to wherever you live and forced you to do shit, you'd complain. But you're cheering for it in this regard because you gain some kind of perverse satisfaction from seeing destitute dark-skinned people pushed into the throng with richer people from countries with a greater fair-skinned make-up. And instead of practising what you preach and inviting some Syrians to come and live with you, you're insisting that other people do what you won't do, and reserve the right to slander them when, because they feel they have enough shit on their plate, they don't want to open their doors.

"Supporting the exclusion of any people from a nation state's lands based on their nation state of origin is, surprise, a fucking statist attitude."

Are you saying the land BELONGS to the 'nation state'?

I'm not supporting exclusion of anyone. But forced inclusion is no better than forced exclusion.

2. Democracy. Yes, I think everyONE should read the Hoppe book. For no other reason other than it has several excellent critiques of democracy. Anarchists would benefit from reading it because they might be able to see how democracy is precisely the kind of statist liberal shit that they need to throw off. For some people, developing these kinds of awarenesses is just too much, apparently. You are implying that the only books worth reading are anarchist books. Which would put you at the centre of a circle-jerk of anarchist ideology, and explains why so many people have a mindset that has remained largely unchanged in 150 years, despite the ideology leading precisely nowhere and costing many lives.

As for your final paragraph, I am fairly sure that even A-news readers can spot it for being nothing but pure hyperbole. It's certainly not an argument, and has absolutely nothing to do with me since I have never once written about oral sex with cops and businessmen. You are the only one that can take credit for that! :D

Lone Raven is right. Look we all know what's going on here is the cultural Marxist conspiracy led by the Jews to force people who would otherwise live in totally autonomous homelands to be tricked and forced into miscegenation, not to mention breaking down the gender roles we were biologically predetermined for. That shit is bad for everybody's folk, faith and cultures, which are degraded by dilution into bland, globalist garbage destroyed by diversity and sexual perversion -- and of course, as Lone Raven says, it's the unborn who suffer the most. We need to get rid of democracy and reimpose ethnopluralism and ethinc and racial separatism, strict gender and sexuality rules, probably under some kind of monarchy. Maybe Peter Thiel or Milo Yiannopolous could be our king, problem is they're perverted faggots. Maybe Richard Spencer or Matthew Heimbach. All hail the alt-right. Long live the Dark Enlightenment.

Syrians aren't going to risk death escaping to Greece and then walking thousands of miles to get to places like the UK and Germany if, when they get there, they will just starve to death.

Classic xenophobic quote - heard the same thing countless times from UKIP types. The implication is that if we deny food to refugees that they won't come. This is demonstrably false - just ask the thousands who died crossing the Mediterranean or the thousands more living in squalid makeshift camps like the Jungle in Calais. People fleeing this war knows there's a good chance they won't even survive the trip, but since they're FLEEING A FUCKING WAR they don't have much of a choice.

This process is enabled with stolen money, which ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians and robber baron landlords.

"Stolen money"? You mean taxes? Groan. Are you seriously arguing that because governments are (severely under-) spending tax money on (some) refugees that all refugees should be excluded? Fuck right off. What about all the folks living off the grid in camps and squats who never see a single tax dollar? And for that matter, what about everyone else who accepts tax dollars? Or everyone else who gets exploited by "robber barons" and corrupt politicians? When ya gonna deport them?

What's more, it is a situation that is being forced on people.

What is it about the free movement of Syians into or through a community that constitutes "force"? When i travel or move, are people being "forced" to accept my presence? Are people supposed to have veto power over which nationalities can enter their town?

 do things. If they came to wherever you live and forced you to do shit, you'd complain.

My city is a leading destination for refugee nationally. There have been zero problems. Fuck your assumptions.

But you're cheering for it in this regard because you gain some kind of perverse satisfaction from seeing destitute dark-skinned people pushed into the throng with richer people from countries with a greater fair-skinned make-up.

Wow. Just fucking wow.

See if you can stick to what I'm saying, rather than trying to project onto me what you perceive from these UKIP boogeymen you've encountered (or conjured).

1. If there is no connection between government handouts and immigrant influx, why are most of them heading for UK, DE and CZ? Why are they beelining for these places? Why don't they get into Turkey or Armenia and then stop? I get that they're fleeing a war, but most of them aren't looking for the nearest safe place now are they?

2. You say governments are underspending tax dollars. Either this means you have no moral objection to tax, in which case there is no way in hell this is consistent with an anarchist position...or you are saying that all the while there ARE governments, that they should spend their money more on what you think are good causes and less on what you think are not good causes. Well guess what, whether you like it or not, the majority of people in Europe DON'T think that refugees are a good cause, even if you do. And since, as I've said before, these are the people whose hearts and minds anarchists must win, you would do well not merely to call them all xenophobes while talking about democracy and 'good causes'.

Btw, this is a good time to clarify that I am not 'for' banning, or deportation, or anything like that. These are state actions. A world without domination would obviously entail no borders. But a world WITH domination and no borders is the worst of both worlds, because the immigration that calls those borders into question is purely the result of statist, heteronomous actions.

Also, having suggested that the refugees are not flocking to the places with the juiciest handouts, you then attempt to justify the handouts by saying they are 'underfunded'. This is a contradiction.

3. Your third point is completely ridiculous. We're talking about places where people already live under trying conditions. Is it as awful as Syria? No. But it ain't a walk in the park. Most 'normal' people in UK, DE, CZ are beleaguered wage slaves. Since most property is owned by rich capitalists, the relationship between house prices, real wages, healthcare costs, etc. means that these people are not exactly thriving. Where are the Syrians gonna live? How are they gonna live? The only answer to this is that they throw themselves on the mercy of others. If this was done on a voluntary basis, I'd have no objection. But it isn't. There is a humongous emotional blackmail psy-op taking place, and guess what, it is yet another example of the conflux of genuinely concerned charitable people and special interest groups that profit from the desperation of immigrants. This is literally how everything in society is run. The question is asked "What about the poor [...] ?", then a edict is made that 'everyone' has to cough up to help [...], and the money flows to the capitalists. That's what fascism IS. And it's enabled by bleeding-heart liberals, even the ones that pretend to be anarchists.

4. What is your city?

If there is no connection between government handouts and immigrant influx, why are most of them heading for UK, DE and CZ? Why are they beelining for these places? Why don't they get into Turkey or Armenia and then stop? I get that they're fleeing a war, but most of them aren't looking for the nearest safe place now are they?

I never said there's no connection - I simply pointed out that your claim wasn't true - refugees are being starved, hunted and drowned in many places and that isn't stemming the tide. Also, for the record, "most" of them (2.7 out of 4.8 million) have stayed in Turkey, with another million in Lebanon and 630 000 in Jordan. The UK on the other hand has pledged to take 20 000 by 2020 and is lagging behind on that pledge.

While we're on the subject, though, why would we expect refugees to look for the "nearest safe place"? If you lost your country, would you stop as soon as you found a decent campsite outside its borders, or try and make it to the place where you could expect to have the best life? This is the kind of logic which passed the "first safe harbour" laws which trapped so many refugees in Greece, and one of the main talking points from UKIP.

You say governments are underspending tax dollars. Either this means you have no moral objection to tax, in which case there is no way in hell this is consistent with an anarchist position...or you are saying that all the while there ARE governments, that they should spend their money more on what you think are good causes and less on what you think are not good causes.

I don't have to support the state to recognize when road budgets aren't keeping up with repairs or when welfare rates don't keep up with the cost of living, why would I need to support the state to make a similar observation about refugees? You're the one making the big fuss about tax dollars - it seemed relevant to point out how few of them are actually going toward refugees. And no, I don't have a "moral" objection to taxation - wouldn't that be "moralism"? (gasp!)

whether you like it or not, the majority of people in Europe DON'T think that refugees are a good cause, even if you do

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a solid majority of Europeans don't like my haircut, either. That's not their choice, though, and neither is the free movement of autonomous individuals. Anarchy ain't a majoritarian democracy, dude.

these are the people whose hearts and minds anarchists must win, you would do well not merely to call them all xenophobes while talking about democracy and 'good causes'

Those people probably don't agree with anarchists on a great many subjects, otherwise they'd all be anarchists too. Were we to water down anarchy to the point that they could all agree with it, we wouldn't be winning their hearts and minds, they'd be winning ours. Actually being an anarchist means sometimes taking unpopular positions.

A world without domination would obviously entail no borders. But a world WITH domination and no borders is the worst of both worlds, because the immigration that calls those borders into question is purely the result of statist, heteronomous actions.

Newsflash kiddo, in a word "with domination" statist actions drive just about everything. What's actually supposed to be so bad about having Syrians nearby?

We're talking about places where people already live under trying conditions. Is it as awful as Syria? No. But it ain't a walk in the park. Most 'normal' people in UK, DE, CZ are beleaguered wage slaves.

Oh fucking spare me. There's just about nowhere on earth and almost certainly no time in history in which "normal" people have enjoyed the kind of standard of living in the UK or Denmark. Sure, it's not exactly utopia, but it's a hell of a lot wealthier and more stable than Turkey, Lebanon or even more southern/eastern parts of Europe. Nowhere else is in a better position to take these refugees, and as I stated above, most of them ARE stranded in much poorer places (hence why so many of these same countries fear Turkish immigration).

There is a humongous emotional blackmail psy-op taking place

Evidence please.

The question is asked "What about the poor [...] ?", then a edict is made that 'everyone' has to cough up to help [...], and the money flows to the capitalists. That's what fascism IS. And it's enabled by bleeding-heart liberals, even the ones that pretend to be anarchists.

That is absolutely not what fascism is. Your anti-immigrant ramblings, however...

---

I don't need to twist your words, they're racist enough as it is. Whether you wanna admit it or not, this is exactly the same kind of xenophobic crap that UKIP puts out. From "they're coming for the benefits" to "taxes are theft" or "emotional blackmail", this shit could have come right out of a Nigel Farage speech.

Well I don't think we are going to get anywhere here, sadly.

One the one hand you are trying to make out like you are examining my stance from an anarchist viewpoint, and saying that you don't want watered-down anarchy, yet you seem to support welfare, and you don't know what the original, economic meaning of fascism is, or won't use it because it's not the way that anarchists like to use it.

But you continue to shift the focus from things I've said to a broad caricature so you can associate me with UKIP and other strawmen, and you didn't answer my question about the city you lived in, so it seems you want to have this debate only on your own terms.

I would suggest we just agree to disagree, but then this all started by you goading me anyway. I guess either I'll get used to the goading and ignore it, and/or you will get used to having heretic voices taking part in the discussions on this site, or I will just leave.

I know for sure which one you are trying to bring about, but I'd say again: if you drive off all dissenting voices, you'll just be left with a hardcore group that has alienated the very people it needs to persuade. You might not care, but these are questions that anarchists as a movement have to address if they are ever to advance, seeing as their project is by nature a societal one.

If you think the environmental situation it the same in a red state as a blue state, you've clearly never lived in both.

If you think a huge domestic ramp up of fossil fuel burning won't have serious, avoidable impacts on the biosphere, you're massively ignorant.

If you think Clinton is likely (sure anything can happen, we're talking what's likely) to pass over federal lands to Republican state legislatures so they can be sold off, you have no sense of reality. There's an infinitesimal chance of that, but a 99% chance of Trump doing it.

If you think Trump and a Republican majority wouldn't work together to mostly cut off non-whites LEGALLY immigrating into the U.S., you'll have to support that.

If you want to see the government limit abortion access, you're not an anarchist in any way.

If you think the people making all those 10,000s of alt-right death threats out there won't kill more people, like the white supremacist couple that ran over that kind in Oregon recently, you're a fool.

But what you mostly are is some one who can't support their assertions.

Correction "If you think the people making all those 10,000s of alt-right death threats out there won't kill more people, like the white supremacist couple that ran over that KID in Oregon recently, you're a fool."

"If you think the environmental situation it the same in a red state as a blue state, you've clearly never lived in both."

The same? No. But are the blue team going to stop industry in America? No. So the difference is minimal, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a minimalist guy. Am I fussed about individual oil pipelines? No. The blue team haven't stopped fracking or put tar sands in CA and UT off-limits.

But you're missing the larger point. As others on this thread have said, to believe that electoral politics makes any sizeable difference, is to a) ignore history; and b) to place faith in something so absurd as to beggar belief.

Some of us know that electoral politics makes no sizeable difference, but we still take the 5 minutes or so required to vote if we think it might mean that the air we breathe will be a little less toxic and a few less species will go extinct in the near future. That's perhaps the most important difference between Clinton and Trump. With Clinton there is the possibility that the state might initiate or at least continue some initiatives that will mean fewer non-human organisms will go extinct. With Trump there's the certainty that the state will gut protections and allow expansion of fossil fuel burning and resource extraction every where, and most likely the air and water everywhere will become more toxic and more species will go extinct than would have happened otherwise. For many of us it's worth 5 minutes to vote for Clinton and minimize the risks of that.

To consider where Democrats have failed in the minor reforms they have attempted or people want them to attempt, it's important to consider the role of a majority Republican congress and state governments where the vast majority of control is held by Republicans -- Republicans whose ideological allegiance is increasingly a mix of different extremism: libertarian, Christian fundamentalist, and now white nationalist.

The other possible difference of note is that Clinton MIGHT manage to initiate some minor criminal justice reforms that would decrease the prison population and the number of people killed in police lynchings and extrajudicial executions to cleanse the country of minorities, the disabled and the extremely poor. The conditions under her might at least keep the death rate at 3 people and 1 African American per day. This I think is less likely than her at least continuing the environmental programs that Trump would gut, but it's possible. Nothing of the sort is vaguely possible with Trump and a Republican Congress and majority Republican held statehouses -- I imagine the extrajudicial execution situation will only get much, much worse. So it's probably worth 5 minutes to vote on the off chance it makes that get a little better or at least not worse.

If those dynamics change (and though maybe the Congress will change this year, the statehouses are unlikely too) then things become more complex. If they stay the same, the current stalemate/stasis on many issues will likely continue under Clinton. Under Trump what will likely happen is what ever all the Republicans can agree upon -- which will probably look like Bush II on steroids.

Some anarchists still believe in the idiocy that if things get bad enough, people will rise up in a way that they will be excited about. But there's few historical examples to support this, and many to counter it.

What you are describing is determined by variables fairly independent of a prospective Trump Presidency. What determines if species kick on or not are conservation and other green groups that already have work to do because of industrial civilization. Historically USians have balanced presidential power with house power. What's to say dems-who supposedly make life less miserable-won't be elected during interim voting periods. Criminal justice reform is inevitable at this point and you might simply see states do it beyond a Trump presidency. Things did not fall apart under Bush jr, in fact in certain ways Obama may be a worse president. The general trend is that since Nixon all presidents have gotten worse on the whole when you look at growth of state power and loss of liberty. If Trump goes full boar with his promises then you are looking at a potential social civil war in the making(which would make sense for this coming late teen-20s period). If such a thing happens it happens. Perhaps Trump is part of a necessary regurgitate period in that countries history. Either way, the best decision is still electing not to vote(outside of extremely personal specific reasons)

Whether the U.S. sticks to international climate agreements (as under Clinton) or not (as under Trump) will have some minor effect on the rate of extinctions most likely, so you're wrong there.

The "conservation and green groups" you be mention will be shit out of luck and spin their wheels in vain for as long as Trump is in office, as they mostly were under Bush II, so there's that to consider. There would be some receptivity under Clinton. All that effects the rate of death of the biosphere, though either way it will continue to die. But where there's life there's hope, and where there's more life there's more hope. So you're wrong there too.

Two years of the current arrangement with Congressional Republican control, over 30 state houses 100% controlled by Republicans (and only around 5 by Dems) and Trump in the Oval would be a long time with a lot of bad shit going down. Repubs and Dems aren't Coke and Pepsi any more -- they're not a bunch of largley indistinguishable coprorate neoliberals with slightly different cultural politics. Repubs now are a mix of social-darwinist-libertarians, white nationalist neo-nazis, and Christian-caliphate-aspiring-fundamentalists -- and a lot of them simply want to cause as much suffering and wreckage as they can to irk the party that put a nigger in the white house and let faggots get married, as they see it. So you're wrong to think that mid-term elections are some consolation to actively (or inactively) helping get Trump elected.

Maybe you were on heavy sedation for those 8 years, but Bush II started massive horrific wars to try to establish libertarian "paradises" in the middle east and to get revenge for 9/11. He also presided over a massive, unprecedented expansion of executive power, surveillance, and the buildup of the police sate. He also fucked the education system even worse than it was, and presided over the economic conditions leading up to the Crash that also happened on his watch. I'm not sure what you're measuring, but by almost every measurable factor things got way worse in America and globally since Bush II took power in 2000 -- and things even did arguably "fall apart" under him, to use your words. So you're wrong there too.

Personally I'm not interested in contributing to millions of people dying in a civil war. I don't need that shit on my head too.

i don't really care what the couple of thousand American anarchists who mostly live in solidly blue states anyway do, but though one can argue that voting accomplishes little to nothing, at the same time nothing is actually gained by NOT voting either. Nothing, that is, but a sense of pretencious anarchist superiority -- and I think most anarchists already have shit loads of that. So saying this is "the best decision" is wrong as well.

And I hope you're right about criminal justice reform, but I don't see it and I won't hold my breath. Indiana just reintroduced strict mandatory minimum for drug charges. Tennessee is sterilizing women as punishment for drug possession. Those are the kind of reforms you'll probably see, if any, in most of those 30+ states where the government are majority Republican controlled.

I really don't see any evidence that a fucking president is the deciding factor for significant species extinction over an industrial civilized process, common man.The fact is there are variables such as new techniques and strategies that conservationists might come up with. I see no significant difference between Bush43 and Obama when it comes to the big picture. Perhaps you should actually provide a species extinction chart during presidential terms as evidence and not make assertions of better and worse based on a fucking executive figurehead.

In terms of Rs and Ds, there are still moderates on both sides. The dems have people that I consider unsavory as well regarding speech issues and identity political fundamentalism. I've seen some of these excessive things come about in liberal Canada. Bush was not the world ending disaster some thought he would be, those two wars would have probably been started by Gore as well. Afghanistan was quite simply going to happen. As for Iraq, you are forgetting the Iraqi Liberation act of 1998. The difference between the green savior and the cowboy is that the former would have simply wine and cheesed the Euros into helping them with an Iraq war. The wicked bitch will surely continue imperial ventures. Executive power expansion has been a general trend since Kennedy got his head popped, no surprises there. It's the dems who are currently imprisoning Chelsea Manning(what diff does donkey or elephant make to her predicament?) and want to do the same to Snowden. They both want Assange as well. As an education abolitionist I can't really say I care about what happens to education. The 08 crash was tied to multiple factors beyond Bush and quite frankly you could see one near the end of Obama's term as the underlying ingredients are still there for it to happen, it was Clinton who got rid of Glass Steagall, it was also Clinton who militarized the police and slicked the process for Bush jr to do the nasty. Classic bait and switch.

Electing not to vote does affect. There's a reason why both parties pour millions into a 'ground game'. You will slowly starve and delegitimize a voting process if the turnout goes south of 50 and downward. Voting is ultimately and belief enforcement based reality and anarchists and anarchs should do all they can to undermine it. Electing not to vote is the least they can do.

A lot of baseless assertions here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you want to convince, provide some.

A healthier, more compassionate corporate state. Sustainable capitalist extraction. Putting the family that put 2m people in jail in the US, BACK in charge of fixing it with "minor" reforms. Michael Moore, is that you?

If you think the Clinton family alone orchestrated the existence of the prison industrial complex you are an idiot. They were rubber stamping figure heads who gave in to a whole ideological movement of right wing law and order BS that was (and probably still is) supported by the majority of white Americans. Even most of those who currently complain about "crooked Hillary" are white supremacists who vociferously support all the racist law and order policies you blame on her, which Trump will expand beyond belief.

"-- massive, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and massive entitlement cuts for the rest"

"-- massive ramp up on fossil fuel burning and climate change, rather than the minor taper currently going on"

What a fucking liberal tool... Obama has pushed for Keystone XL, for fast-tracking the TPP, has handed over gazillions in bail outs to the Wall Street banks, yet as a Xmas gift to the poor in 2014, cut their food stamps by several billions.

You must be retarded I guess, thinking the Democrats are any resort from Big Bad Boy Trump. Born yesterday, maybe?

I know anarchists live in a parallel reality, but Obama nixed Keystone, dipshit. You can fucking bet Trump wouldn't.

For everything awful Obama has done, Bush II or Trump or any of those fucking Republicans would do 10 things that are 10 times worse. Why don't you should your ignorant mouth and go back and circle jerk about your utopia, you useless, clueless tool of the libertarians, fundamentalist and other conservatives.

That was just under internal pressure that Obama slowed down Keystone, but the project is very well ongoing. Source: the real world, North Dakota, at the present time.

But I suppose that those resisting pipeline protesters are all a bunch of Infowars tools, right, you fucking dupe?

You expect the American President to do anything to expect the environment just out of their own initiative and not "under internal pressure" (which I'm assuming means popular pressure)?

The Keystone XL pipeline project is not ongoing, dipshit. That's the Bakken pipeline they're protesting in North Dakota. Different pipeline, different route.

Look environmentalists and any one else who cares about the ongoing ecocide can expect that if Clinton is elected that a lot of existing initiatives that do slow mass extinction and make the world less toxic will continue, and there will be at least a minor opening to introduce more -- and I'm talking about nationwide, initiatives that can be rammed down the the throat of the red states that want to wallow in filth as they practice their absolute dominion over all other life forms.

If Trump is elected, and Republican congressional majority still exists, the gutting of federal environmental regulations will be unprecedented. Bluer, greener states will spend all their time battling to keep from the rules they have now being eliminated via federal actions.

All this may sound like liberal, statist garbage to most people reading this, but what it boils down to is that more people and more non-human lifeforms will die, and more species will go extinct more quickly, with Trump in office. So if you live in a swing state, take the 5 minutes and vote for Clinton. There's no reason to feel particularly good about yourself and the world afterwards, but if you feel particularly "sullied" afterwards, that's silly -- unless you feel sullied after every single interaction you ever have with capitalism and the state. And if that's the case, I feel sorry for you.

"The Keystone XL pipeline project is not ongoing, dipshit. That's the Bakken pipeline they're protesting in North Dakota. Different pipeline, different route."

I didn't say Keystone XL was still ongoing, but that the project to link the Canadian tar sands to the Gulf by pipeline was still ongoing. Obama's fake move "against" tar sands was really just the Democrats picking sides with Enbridge instead of Transcanada, you dumbass. So, "internal politics", completely.

And srsly what the fuck are you doing here saying things like "Just vote Democrat"? This isn't Huffintong Post, dimwit.

Still lame if trolling.

Srsly
Apparently one must just rename the pipeline and do the exact same thing a few counties over and people think the approach has been thwarted by the party of wall st

https://bsnorrell.blogspot.ca/2016/08/fraudulent-scheme-dakota-access.html

And I feel sorry for you for being such a controlled sheep of politics. That makes you even more sad if you go around pretending being anarchist at the same time.

I feel sorry for you being a paid troll of Putin. That makes you even more said if you go around pretending being anarchist at the same time.

Oh sweet Jebus... Isn't that the "anti-fracking resistance is Putin" conspiracy theory, made famous by your dear zealot Anders Fogh not long before he was kicked out of office? So sure... by now anyone daring not to STFU about Democrats corporate games and foreign imperialist wars is a Putin agent. As a matter of fact Chomsky and Abby Martin are our top handlers, but shhht!

Oh and by the way, your Obama has just launched more wars and military invasions than under Bush II, so yeah let's vote for the wife of the guy who also launched the campaign for the destruction of the Balkans just to lend a hand to a bunch of islamic jihadists, and also he purely racist slaughter in Somalia.

"who also launched the campaign for the destruction of the Balkans just to lend a hand to a bunch of islamic jihadists" Islamic jihadists in the Balkans?! Explain...

Having spent a lot of time in the Balkans in the early 2000s, and also knowing many Rwandans, from everything I've seen it's entirely reasonable to think that in the Balkans, as in Rwanda, there would have been less ethnic cleansing and genocide if there had been serious outside military intervention sooner. Which would be a good thing. And it's probably the same with Syria and Assad.

But nobody has a crystal ball. All I'm saying is that anarchists shouldn't fall for the garbage spouted by authoritarian leftists who love Putin and Assad, and who think American military intervention is always worse than the alternative. This shit is all bad, it's all state violence, but American state violence and attempts at empire building isn't somehow worse than Saudi, Iranian, Russian, Syrian, etc. state violence, or the attempts by many of those powers to build an empire. America could vanish today and the state and empire building would go on, led by Russia and some others the idiot authoritarian leftists at places like Counterpunch like to misname as "anti-imperialist" states.

Again, no one has a crystal ball, but if, for example, the U.S. had stepped in to try and help stabilize Syria earlier -- either in favor or against Assad, either way actually -- there very likely WOULD NOT have been the rise of IS and an international refugee crisis and all the right-wing nationalist, "war of civilizations" garbage that's ensued. Maybe there would have been other garbage, but still, there's no moral imperative to be uniquely against American military intervention but for Russian and Iranian military intervention in Syria or any where else.

No the Clintons have launched the military offensive all over Bosnia and Serbia/Montenegro back in 1998. The jihadist islamists were an inside force on the Muslim side of the conflict, and have been carrying massacres since the early '90.

I don't see where is the "authoritarian Left" garbage in there. Go to Bosnia and Serbia, and beyond the still-destroyed infrastructure and buildings, everyone will tell you the same story... that NATO, with Clinton as the warlord figure, has decapitated Yugoslavia after using the same tactics in the exact same way than Nazis did during WW2, using the Islamic fascists (Ustace, and more rencently Al Qaeda) to mass-murder people so to divide and conquer the country (with the exact same division map than under Nazi occupation). I don't dig "Putin" or Russia as it's a barbaric regime, but one's gotta be retarded to believe that Russia are the new Nazis like Prince Charles and co wants you to believe. It's NATO. More precisely the EU.

Wow. You are either paid to spread misinformation or you are completely ignorant and think you know something about history. The Bonsnian war in the 1990s was characterized by genocide committed AGAINST MUSLIMS BY SERBIAN NATIONALISTS. Your idea that "jihadist islamists" have been "carrying massacres since the early '90" in Bosnia is some of the craziest shit I've ever heard, and having spent time all around the former Yugoslavia back in 2000, I heard some pretty crazy shit but you're just full of it.

The Ustace were fiercely Catholic terrorists in Croatia during WWII. Seriously, what are you on?

Russia isn't the new Nazis, it's a nationalist, imperialist power. Like the U.S., like Iran, etc. But there's certainly no reason to think its interest are better than America's, even if you don't think they're necessarily worse. It's power, it's evil.

The Ustace were Catholic AND Muslim paramilitaries that were under the command of Nazi puppets, for a puppet State of the Nazi occupiers (Croatia), you sack of shit. They were the Croatian Liberation Movement, similar to the gangsterist Kosovo Liberation Army. The Serbs never committed any genocide or death camps against Muslims, this is the biggest fucking Western media lie of the '90s. The Srebrenicza "death camp" was just a transition medical camp for war refugees.

Kinda like calling the current Greek refugee camps "death camps" in order to legitimate the Golden Dawn for their attacks upon them. You're fucking rooting for the wrong people, through a deceitful rhetoric.

You're the paid troll here, and paid by none else than the Democrat Party. As for me, I serve no other interest than the dignity of the people from YUGOSLAVIA that I've known who've survived a completely set-up destabilization of a society in the shape of the bloodiest massacre in recent European history.

Pissing contest between those who spent more in ex-Yugoland. Does it mean your analysis is better? Maybe so!

even critical does not serve anarchy or life.

I don't think you know what serves the purpose of "life", or even anarchy. The other day I fell in love with a girl by going to an history class, near the vending machines and the water fountain. People are just lying to themselves in order to get closer to the truth. That's what they do, no matter if failed or not.

The argument has been partly resolved already though. The recent ICTY report that clears Milosevic pretty much shows how the whole thing was, as one poster above suggests, manipulated by outside imperalist forces to fuck up what was effectively the last bastion against neoliberalism in Europe.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/provoking-nuclear-war-by-media

Anyone who wants to defend the Clintons, even as a lesser evil than Donald Trump, has a lot to respond to. They could start by reading 'No One Left to Lie to' by Christopher Hitchens, and seeing if they can even bring theirselves to vote Hillary, let alone ask others to do the same.

Yeah, it sounds like Milosevic got a raw deal to say the least. But that doesn't affect the fact that the Serbian nationalists in Bosnia who wouldn't listen to Milosevic committed genocide and ethnic cleansing, something other commenter(s) on here are denying while claiming that in fact jihadists did it.

As has been said elsewhere this is akin to "saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, that Auschwitz was a medical camp for refugees, and that in fact Jewish insurgents have been and are killing people in Germany until today." If A-news is a haven for this sort of thing, Holocaust denialism can't be far off.

I'm less concerned with the details of WWII history, but the moron above is either some kind of Serbian nationalist or a Putin-paid pan-Slavic type, who is declaring that history is actually upside down from what every one who lived through the 90s knows happened. They are declaring that the genocide committed by Serbian nationalists against Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), primarily the Srebenica massacre of over 8000 Bosniaks by Serbian nationalist troops in the 1995 is a "western media lie." They are saying that Srebenica was a medical camp for refugees, and that, in fact, Bosniaks were the ones massacring Serbians. This is a smaller scale version of saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, that Auschwitz was a medical camp for refugees, and that in fact Jewish insurgents have been and are killing people in Germany until today -- the difference is that most of us actually were alive during the genocide of Bosniaks committed by Serbian nationalists. If A-news is nothing but a haven for Slav nationalist trolls, that's the end of this forum. Next it really will become an alt-right haven for Holocaust denialism and anti-semitism.

"declaring that history is actually upside down from what every one who lived through the 90s knows happened"

How do you know what happened?

Your contention that "every one who lived through the 90s" knows what happened is absurd on its face. Most people have no idea of what went on. In fact, most people are completely ignorant of Jugoslav history.

Your viewpoint also misses all of the historiographical nuances entirely. For instance, you draw a parallel between versions of events in Jugoslavia that run counter to the 'official story' and holocaust denial. This is ironic because some of the historians that most thoroughly question the official story are Jewish Holocaust scholars. :D

Okay Lone Rave, please, tell us then about how the Holocaust didn't happen, and Srebrenica didn't happen, and the Rwandan genocide didn't happen, etc.

I'm not saying any of those things.

In the last paragraph, stabilizing can apparently include US overthrowing foreign governments

you're an idiot

"In the last paragraph, stabilizing can apparently include US overthrowing foreign governments

you're an idiot"

Yes. If the U.S. had helped Assad in his goal to mass murder Syrians to regain power, that could have stabilized Syria.

Likewise if the U.S. had helped the mass, grassroots revolution to depose Assad's brutal dictatorship, that could have stabilized Syria.

If you don't think either of these could have worked, you know nothing of history.

The idea that American or other outside military intervention can't help stabilize a regime (which is not to say that regime won't be oppressive) is woefully ignorant of history.

Whose the idiot?

After apparently spreading like Ebola through the US anarchist milieus, the US President Elections virus, strain HV-6, has now invaded Anews... /r/anarchism reported to be the last bastion of anti-electoral resistance. (no that's a joke)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory

Nothing empirical about this really but it's interesting to ponder what the late teens and mid 20s is going to bring on. The last 3 turns have seen a major construction/reconstruction periods. Could there be a great American Social war coming, who knows. Interesting times ahead.

Two leftists jawing at each other about an election is relevant how..?

Nothing any flavor of anarchists really want is going to be accomplished through electoral means. Worrying excessively about whether or not to participate in electoral politics is just something some anarchists do because they haven't entirely eradicated from their mindset the hope of electoral reforms.

Vote or don't vote, whatever. Hell you can even get involved more heavily in electoral politics, working on campaigns, what ever, who cares. Just don't get moralistic about it -- treat it opportunistically, as something you do for the short term gain of yourself or others you care about, the same as you might think about any action you do to get the money to avoid crushing poverty. If you participate a bit in electoral politics without taking it very seriously, whatever -- in the end it doesn't matter any more than your consumer choices or your career choices do. It's only buying in to capitalist and statist BS that makes any one think that some purity about whether you vote, what you buy or where you work matters.

So in the presidential election of 2016, stop fretting, if your gut tells you to vote because of what might happen in the short term for you and people you care about, then vote. There's a slim chance Trump's election could pave the way for the alt-right to gain a lot of power and fight their desired race war to establish a whites-only ethno-state in north America. And though that is some what far fetched, Trump would definitely work with the majority Republican Congress and state government to turn as much of America as he can into the equivalent of a red state that combines the more unsavory elments of places like Texas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas and Louisiana, where there's zero environmental protections, abortion is almost totally inaccessible, open carry is the law of the land, the rich and corporations pay no taxes, all infrastructure is crumbling, social entitlements are totally eliminated, there's constant violence over race issues (even more than currently), and all aspects of the government and economy are totally controlled by a bunch of racist, corrupt good old boys. Yeah, even that they can't fully accomplish, but that will be the general trend. Personally I think that's a modicum worse than Democratic-party-led neoliberal conditions today, so I'll probably bother to vote for Clinton to beat Trump.

On the other hand some anarchists like the idea of things getting at least moderately worse in all the ways I mentioned, for what ever reason, but I don't know why because I don't think it's particularly MORE likely to lead to any of the kinds of change they want and it will just increase suffering and atrocities in the mean time, perhaps moving us towards the alt-right's desired racial holy war. But if that's how you feel, go vote for him. Or if you think I'm wrong, what ever, go vote for him.

If you don't like that idea, vote for Clinton.

If you don't care, don't vote.

None of those choices have much to do with getting what you really want, in my opinion, and I don't see why anarchistst would agonize over them, or any other choices about elections. Elections are pretty cut and dry -- a bunch of people and propositions that are indistinguishably evil, and occasionally a choice between greater and lesser evils that is significant enough to bother to vote.

I have zero idea why any anarchists would be interested in the green progressive BS of Jill Stein, or why that crap even makes it on here. It's even more baffling to me than the Sanders-mania of some anarchists. Sanders at least had some small chance of going some where. Why bother to participate in a process that can't give you what you want to cast a symbolic vote for Stein.

What difference would it make who is elected into the toilet seat of power? The distinction isn't qualitative and the very notion of classifying Trump as anymore 'dangerous' than any other functionary is a waste of time.
As the anon above says, 'two leftists jawing at each other about an election is relevant how?'

Obama is behaving like Cesar, and now the newest elections are even circus. that's not an accident. They laugh in the face of so many millions of Americans who are political idiots to believe in elections. Clinton will win, because she is already connected, through her husband and by herself, with the billionaires that profit from the war and other shit. Trump is connected but not with all of them who profit from the war, he is without experience comparing with Hillary. Hillary is together with the CIA and billionaires, Trump is maybe friend with some billionaires and that's all. it is clear who will serve better the interest of billionaires. the war machine will continue, and the war propaganda includes racism, colonial racism, economic racism, the show must go on. the core of the system is not touched, the Russia is next in the line to be colonized.

Thank you for your contribution, Mr. Putin's hackers!

Anarchists that choose sides in a war of American imperialists vs. Russian imperialists are the biggest tools of all!

The liberal idiots who authored this and those following the same line of "thought" just can't see the correlation as to why Elon Musk is unveiling his big plans for a travel to Mars right in the midst of the current election, even during the Presidential debates. The whole Californian tech industry is into the Democrat party BIG TIME, and equally enemies to Trump. Even the Koch Bros, biggest shareholders of the GOP have positioned against Trump. This is a farce... this clown is not going to get elected, stop the scare.

If we're (un)lucky, this false binary of an election is all a big planned set up by the finance gangs. This is oddly similar to the National Front scares in France at the first turn of the elections Sarkozy won. The sheeple went into electroral/spectacular panic over these obvious fascists getting big in the results, while a more insidious fascist took power. Fast forward to Valls/Le Pen at the next French elections.

It's probably worth mentioning that because real anarchists don't engage with electoral politics much, the majority of the discourse here is reflecting the echo-chamber of a-news' little collection of confused, myopic halfwits who washed up here for a bunch of their own personal reasons. Just my 2 cents but since you invited discussion on the issue, I hope you understand just how little anarchist data you're actually collecting right now.

I do see the danger of the inevitable upswing in hardcore reactionary extremism that Trump represents but he's just a hologram. I'm worried about the new gang of boneheads busily recruiting in my town as I'm typing this because they're a much more tangible threat although I see the larger connections, they seem more abstract and less relevant. Also, I'm not american so there's that.

If there are boneheads getting big in your town that just means you got to organize some serious antifa resistance against them. Supporting Democrats won't change a thing, and in fact the current Democrat administration is the biggest factor of why they got so big and out of their sewers recently.

Don't be tempted by Democratrolls parasiting this site... Use FULL COMMUNISM.

And/or anarchy.

Elaborate please...