The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Douglas Caddy]

David Talbot posted this on Facebook today:

Transformational Politics... That's what we desperately need today. And that was the title of a 250-page treatise that young Barack Obama co-wrote in the early 1990s when he was a student at Harvard Law School. Thanks to a forthcoming book by historian Timothy Sherik (excerpted in the Sunday New York Times), we know that young Obama had a radical vision for transforming the Democratic Party and American politics, inspired by the gay, ex-Communist, civil rights leader Bayard Rustin.

Rustin had a class-based vision for reviving the New Deal coalition of working-class whites and racial minorities, calling it "the March on Washington coalition," even though the other organizers of that legendary 1963 protest (which featured Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have Dream" speech) shunted Rustin to the side because of his radical and sexual politics.

Like Rustin, young Obama believed that America's racial and cultural fractures were exploited by Republicans. The way around this was to put class interest first, uniting working people against the power elite rather than dividing them. Today, as Sherik points out, taxes aimed at the super wealthy, strong labor unions and a livable minimum wage are hugely popular issues with the American people. While phony Trumpian populists cling to cutting the capital gains tax, a revived March on Washington coalition would eat the rich -- and thereby undercut Trump's white nationalist appeal.

But instead of taking the political path to solid majority rule that he laid out as a law student, President Obama sold out working people of all colors, continuing Bill Clinton's disastrous Wall Street tilt and filling his administration with banksters like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner. Obama said later that he also learned about "the intricacies of power" at Harvard.

Too bad that Obama, who was so good at quoting 1960s revolutionaries like King, didn't take to heart a line from Italian novelist Ignazio Silone that Tom Hayden was fond of quoting: "What would happen if men remained loyal to the ideals of their youth?"

Today Obama and his wife, Michelle, are bringing a biopic on Bayard Rustin to the Netflix screen. But they are doing nothing to advance Rustin's working-class vision within the Democratic Party.

Last week, the media celebrated the life of country singer Loretta Lynn, who died at age 90. I know nothing about Lynn's politics. But she was a strong woman, a coal miner's daughter. The Democratic Party should be attracting her hard-scrabble fans, too

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

What are you taking offense at here? Whenever your challenged in any detail, you answer in short, glib responses. The conversations never grow or get anywhere,  and you act hurt that anyone would dare challenge you.

By the sheer volume of your posts , you're obsessed with demonizing HRC, Liz Cheney and Pelosi. What is this problem you have with assertive women? Give me an example of a woman you admire? In 2 years, I've never heard one example.

Let me give you an example of your hypocrisy. You were the foremost China hawk here, which was fine with me.You were always attacking Nancy Pelosi as being the globalist instrument of the CCP.  Then Pelosi goes to Taiwan, and you do an about face and accuse her of trying to score points solely to make some commentary on "new age women's assertiveness". Or were you just embarrassed that she showed more balls and has steadier conviction than you? You're certainly more impossible than any date I've had.       heh heh

Since you also did an about face from the Ukraine super hawk position. Why shouldn't we question someone whose emotions just change with the wind?  

Kirk---

I have not done an about-face on Ukraine.

I was and am still for an aggressive defense of Ukraine, but if a suitable offramp offers itself, so be it. 

I have legitimate concerns that what has started as a war to preserve Ukraine from an aggressor has morphed into a much longer and more-expensive mission to effect a regime change in Moscow. 

I accurately stated that the Bien Administration may have bungled its way into this war, by signaling to Russia it would not contest the space. Such as offering Zelensky a ride, not a gun. 

As during the Trump Administration, I have consistent concerns that the intel state, aka shadow government or the Deep State, is operating beyond the purview of the chief executive, with aims of its own. This probably happens in every administration---a lesson from the JFK days. 

If you have views and insights, please present them. 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Douglas Caddy]

[Douglas Caddy]

[Benjamin Cole]

3 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

David Talbot posted this on Facebook today:

Transformational Politics... That's what we desperately need today. And that was the title of a 250-page treatise that young Barack Obama co-wrote in the early 1990s when he was a student at Harvard Law School. Thanks to a forthcoming book by historian Timothy Sherik (excerpted in the Sunday New York Times), we know that young Obama had a radical vision for transforming the Democratic Party and American politics, inspired by the gay, ex-Communist, civil rights leader Bayard Rustin.

Rustin had a class-based vision for reviving the New Deal coalition of working-class whites and racial minorities, calling it "the March on Washington coalition," even though the other organizers of that legendary 1963 protest (which featured Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have Dream" speech) shunted Rustin to the side because of his radical and sexual politics.

Like Rustin, young Obama believed that America's racial and cultural fractures were exploited by Republicans. The way around this was to put class interest first, uniting working people against the power elite rather than dividing them. Today, as Sherik points out, taxes aimed at the super wealthy, strong labor unions and a livable minimum wage are hugely popular issues with the American people. While phony Trumpian populists cling to cutting the capital gains tax, a revived March on Washington coalition would eat the rich -- and thereby undercut Trump's white nationalist appeal.

But instead of taking the political path to solid majority rule that he laid out as a law student, President Obama sold out working people of all colors, continuing Bill Clinton's disastrous Wall Street tilt and filling his administration with banksters like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner. Obama said later that he also learned about "the intricacies of power" at Harvard.

Too bad that Obama, who was so good at quoting 1960s revolutionaries like King, didn't take to heart a line from Italian novelist Ignazio Silone that Tom Hayden was fond of quoting: "What would happen if men remained loyal to the ideals of their youth?"

Today Obama and his wife, Michelle, are bringing a biopic on Bayard Rustin to the Netflix screen. But they are doing nothing to advance Rustin's working-class vision within the Democratic Party.

Last week, the media celebrated the life of country singer Loretta Lynn, who died at age 90. I know nothing about Lynn's politics. But she was a strong woman, a coal miner's daughter. The Democratic Party should be attracting her hard-scrabble fans, too

The Obamas, who live in a house the size of medium-sized hotel in Martha's Vineyard "are bringing a biopic on Bayard Rustin to the Netflix screen."

Try to say that earnestly. 

Next time you are at a dinner, concoct a sincere look on your face and say in earnest, reverent tones, "The Obamas are bringing a biopic on Bayard Rustin to the Netflix screen."

 

[Matt Allison]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I have legitimate concerns that what has started as a war to preserve Ukraine from an aggressor has morphed into a much longer and more-expensive mission to effect a regime change in Moscow.

Recall how many in the USG thought Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, only for it to come to pass.

For so very long the U.S. wanted things to work out in Russia, and for Putin to succeed. Always have given him the benefit of the doubt. And all he would do is just continue to try to sabotage the U.S.

Putin is now a danger to the whole world and everyone is tired of his BS and giving him second chances. He's a clear and present danger to all humanity, Russia included.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Matt Allison said:

Recall how many in the USG thought Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, only for it to come to pass.

For so very long the U.S. wanted things to work out in Russia, and for Putin to succeed. Always have given him the benefit of the doubt. And all he would do is just continue to try to sabotage the U.S.

Putin is now a danger to the whole world and everyone is tired of his BS and giving him second chances. He's a clear and present danger to all humanity, Russia included.

 

Matt--

You may be right. 

But...Putin is mortal. How many years left?

Many people felt as you do during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Russia's military was growing in power and would eventually eclipse the US due to its autocratic rulers spending heavily on arms---that was the CIA line. Ergo a first-strike nuke war was justified. 

I contend Putin has engaged in a volitional war, despite mitigating circumstances. To me, he is a war criminal. 

However, you may have the last laugh.

It could be the US Deep State lured Putin into Ukraine. The obvious signals were sent that the US would not contest Ukraine. Was Biden cognizant of unfolding events? The Deep State running its own foreign policy is hardy a novelty. 

During any presidency. 

 

[John Cotter]

25 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

You've done nothing of the sort.

Passing off your fantasies and alternate realities doesn't work here. Sorry.

Remind me again of the last time the U.S. annexed land illegally?

You can't, because they haven't, and thus your silly arguments are a joke.

Thanks for validating my arguments by failing to logically rebut them and instead going ad hominem, Matt.

As for your closing question, it’s rather silly of you to raise the spectre of the genocide of the indigenous Americans upon which the USA was founded.

[Douglas Caddy]

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The Obamas, who live in a house the size of medium-sized hotel in Martha's Vineyard "are bringing a biopic on Bayard Rustin to the Netflix screen."

Try to say that earnestly. 

Next time you are at a dinner, concoct a sincere look on your face and say in earnest, reverent tones, "The Obamas are bringing a biopic on Bayard Rustin to the Netflix screen."

 

Michelle Obama and Bayard Rustin have something in common, so it makes sense although I must admit it is also startling.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Thanks for validating my arguments by failing to logically rebut them and instead going ad hominem, Matt.

As for your closing question, it’s rather silly of you to raise the spectre of the genocide of the indigenous Americans upon which the USA was founded.

What say you to the argument the US (or rather its intel services) lured Putin into Ukraine by first signaling it would not contest the space?

Here is Charles Russell Mead:

"Recently, I had a conversation with an American official who was very proud of the way that the US had broken the mold by revealing intelligence about Russia’s plans to invade Ukraine, and pointed out how that had really helped build the NATO coalition against Russian aggression, and so on.

So far as he goes, it’s true. But I said, however, if you really look at the total message the US was projecting to Russia in those critical months, there were two messages. One is, “We’ve got great intelligence on you. We actually understand you much better than you think.” It was shocking. I think it shocked the Russians. But on the other hand, we’re saying, “We think you’re going to win quickly in Ukraine. We’re offering Zelenskyy a plane ride out of Kyiv. We’re pulling out all our diplomats and urging other countries to pull out their diplomats.”

The message, actually the totality of the message that we sent to Putin is, “'You are going to win if you do this.'”

---30---

Then from Matt Taibbi:

Matt Taibbi: There was a story that came out this week that seemed amazing, that got almost no press. It was an Intercept story and the gist was that when the American intelligence community looked at the invasion at the beginning of the conflict, they were so convinced that Russia would win that they withdrew any forces that we had in Ukraine. Now that the conflict has been drawn out, we’re now returning what they’re describing as both CIA and “US special operations, personnel and resources” in Ukraine. This is dovetailing with reports of American bodies popping up in the Ukrainian theater. This seemed like a big story. In the past, the idea that that that either CIA personnel or military personnel had been found in the middle of a hot war would get more ink. Or would it?

---30---

So, the US vacated Ukraine and offered Zelensky a ride.

A heartened Putin invades. 

Now, Putin is enmeshed, just like the US in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. 

It would not be the first time foreign policy was essentially made by the Deep State and not the sitting US president. 

 

[Matthew Koch]

45 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

You've done nothing of the sort.

Passing off your fantasies and alternate realities doesn't work here. Sorry.

Remind me again of the last time the U.S. annexed land illegally?

You can't, because they haven't, and thus your silly arguments are a joke.

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hawaii-petition
 

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Thanks for the link to that article, William. I hadn’t read it before. It’s an interesting article, but it’s riddled with flaws and projection.

I won’t recite all of them. I’ll just mention one of them. At one point Stephen Kotkin says:

“[The Russians have] been in this bind for a while because they cannot relinquish that sense of exceptionalism, that aspiration to be the greatest power, but they cannot match that in reality.”

The flaw here is that there’s no evidence that Russia aspires to be “the greatest power” and Kotkin has provided no such evidence. Russia is indeed, as Mearsheimer has said, a great power, and that’s self-evident.

However, there’s a crucial difference between being a great power and the greatest power. It’s a difference upon which, arguably, this whole Ukraine crisis – and indeed a possible global existential crisis – turns.

Because, ironically, there’s only one country in the world which aspires to be, and has largely succeeded in being, by dint of its military aggression “the greatest power”, namely, the USA.

The USA’s objective is to maintain and extend its unipolar global dominance. Since this is obviously an existential threat to Russia, Russia has no option but to fight against such dominance, which fight, if successful, would result in a multipolar geopolitical order.

That’s what I mean by projection. Kotkin’s thesis is essentially the Manichean “evil Russia vs good USA” one that I mentioned previously. It’s a thoroughly perverse perspective because, if anything, the preponderance of morality lies not with the aggressor, the USA, but with the victim of the aggression, Russia.

The question I asked Matt about what flaw(s) he could cite in Mearsheimer’s thesis remains unanswered. Kotkin purportedly addresses this question: He argues that NATO’s eastward expansion was necessary because Russia’s pathological aspiration to be the greatest world power needed to be countered. I have already rebutted that argument above.

Mearsheimer, Kennan and the “Realist” US geopolitical experts (including, God forbid, Henry Kissinger) were right. As Mearsheimer said, the only rational approach would have been to have a buffer zone of neutral countries between the respective domains of the great powers in question, the USA and Russia.

The current crisis is the result of the USA’s elimination of such a buffer zone.

John,

    You wrote:  "That’s what I mean by projection. Kotkin’s thesis is essentially the Manichean “evil Russia vs good USA” one that I mentioned previously. It’s a thoroughly perverse perspective because, if anything, the preponderance of morality lies not with the aggressor, the USA, but with the victim of the aggression, Russia."

    I emphatically disagree.

    I'm the furthest thing from an apologist for CIA and U.S. military atrocities in the post-WWII era, but let's not forget about the dark side of Russian history since 1917, including Putin's current atrocities in Ukraine.

     Stalin was one of the most evil, immoral men in the annals of world history. 

    Jared Diamond and other historians consider the Stalinist/Soviet genocide to be the single worst genocide in human history-- resulting in an estimated 20 million Russian deaths caused by the Soviet government, including the Ukrainian Holodomor.

    Have you read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago?  

    The Mitrokhin archival material published at Cambridge University as The Sword and the Shield is another important reference about Soviet KGB history.

    (A less well known eye opener is Professor I.M. Andreeyev's history of Russia's Catacomb Saints, documenting the horrific, largely secretive persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church by the Soviet government after 1917.)

    As for Putin, his grandfather Spiridon Putin was Stalin's chef, and his father Vladimir worked in Stalin's notorious NKVD Destruction Brigades in WWII.    Putin was a KGB agent stationed in Dresden during the collapse of the Soviet Union, before later re-surfacing as an "ex-KGB" apparatchik in the Yeltsin government.

    After coming to power in the 1990s, Putin gradually transformed Russia's nascent democracy into a totalitarian police state, run by Putin's FSB-aligned oligarchs..

     British author, Catherine Belton, has written cogently about this subject in Putin's People.

Putin's People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West: Belton, Catherine: 9780374238711: Amazon.com: Books

     Compare the legacy of the U.S. Marshall Plan in Western Europe to the fate of the totalitarian police states of the Soviet Eastern bloc.

    Is it any wonder that the people of Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland and the former Warsaw Pact nations want to belong to NATO?  What does Putin's oligarchic/police state offer them?

   So, Kotkin is correct, like most Princetonians.

 

   

Edited October 10, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[John Cotter]

48 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

What say you to the argument the US (or rather its intel services) lured Putin into Ukraine by first signaling it would not contest the space?

Here is Charles Russell Mead:

"Recently, I had a conversation with an American official who was very proud of the way that the US had broken the mold by revealing intelligence about Russia’s plans to invade Ukraine, and pointed out how that had really helped build the NATO coalition against Russian aggression, and so on.

So far as he goes, it’s true. But I said, however, if you really look at the total message the US was projecting to Russia in those critical months, there were two messages. One is, “We’ve got great intelligence on you. We actually understand you much better than you think.” It was shocking. I think it shocked the Russians. But on the other hand, we’re saying, “We think you’re going to win quickly in Ukraine. We’re offering Zelenskyy a plane ride out of Kyiv. We’re pulling out all our diplomats and urging other countries to pull out their diplomats.”

The message, actually the totality of the message that we sent to Putin is, “'You are going to win if you do this.'”

---30---

Then from Matt Taibbi:

Matt Taibbi: There was a story that came out this week that seemed amazing, that got almost no press. It was an Intercept story and the gist was that when the American intelligence community looked at the invasion at the beginning of the conflict, they were so convinced that Russia would win that they withdrew any forces that we had in Ukraine. Now that the conflict has been drawn out, we’re now returning what they’re describing as both CIA and “US special operations, personnel and resources” in Ukraine. This is dovetailing with reports of American bodies popping up in the Ukrainian theater. This seemed like a big story. In the past, the idea that that that either CIA personnel or military personnel had been found in the middle of a hot war would get more ink. Or would it?

---30---

So, the US vacated Ukraine and offered Zelensky a ride.

A heartened Putin invades. 

Now, Putin is enmeshed, just like the US in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. 

It would not be the first time foreign policy was essentially made by the Deep State and not the sitting US president. 

 

It wouldn’t surprise me, Benjamin. It would be a repeat of the “Afghan Trap”, as described in this interview with President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski:

https://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview

[Benjamin Cole]

5 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

It wouldn’t surprise me, Benjamin. It would be a repeat of the “Afghan Trap”, as described in this interview with President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski:

https://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview

John C.--

I have to say, Putin, the Russians and the Ukrainians would have been better off if Putin had not taken the bait. 

Ukraine has the makings of a long stalemate, deeply injurious to all, economically and in human terms. 

To me, Putin's invasion of Ukraine was volitional. Russia has tactical nukes, big nukes, thousands and thousands of tanks and an artillery corps still highly regarded.

No one was planning on invading Russia. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

‘Balanced, thoughtful’: Russia praises OPEC for production cut

US fears a spike in gasoline prices ahead of the midterm elections after OPEC+ decision to cut oil production by two million barrels per day starting in November.---Al Jazeera

---30---

The Biden fist-bump with a murderous thug...is reaping a poisonous harvest.