US Politics 55
Trump Represents a Split in the Ruling Class
Trump Represents a Split in the Ruling Class
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
It is good that many on the U.S. left are beginning to see that the clashes between Trump and his supporters against the so-called “resistance,” reflect a “split in the ruling class.”
This is the view of Greg Godels, the prominent American communist journalist who used to use the pen name Zoltan Zigedy. “It is a very healthy advance because it rules out confusion fomented by the Democratic Party leadership, childish sensationalism, and the meaningless simplicity of the capitalist media.
According to Godels, this is a real and fierce battle between different groups among the richest and most powerful. It’s a conflict that gives deeper meaning to the strange mischief of the Trump era. Behind the harsh and illusory images of a corrupt vulgar person like Trump, to whom only by the “heroic” protectors of freedom and security (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.) object, hides a real struggle for ideas, interests and the future. It is good that more people are seeing it as a struggle between the rich and the powerful fighting over their different visions of the future of capitalism: “a split in the ruling class.”
Many times in the last two years, Greg Godels has written about the emergence of alternatives to market fundamentalism such as neoliberalism and globalization in the conventional wisdom of the ruling class. He has argued that the rise of economic nationalism in advanced economies is an expression of that alternative. Intensified competition in energy policy is offered as a material symptom of economic nationalism, as is disinterest in maintaining a relatively peaceful backdrop for securing and promoting trade.
The United States is more interested in selling arms than in resolving its many wars (it is known that Secretary of State Pompeo convinced members of the Trump administration, publicly embarrassed by the massacre in Yemen, not to cut off support for Saudi Arabia because of such misdeed due to the possible loss of $2 billion in arms sales).
A recent reflection by Joshua Green, Bloomberg Businessweek national correspondent, entitled The Dividends of Anger, accounts for how the recognition of the changing political terrain provoked by the crisis. Trump’s slogan of economic nationalism “Make America Great Again” explains how it was the anger over the financial bailout that gave Trump the presidency. Green recalls Obama’s infamous meeting at the White House with the CEOs of the major banks, where he frankly told them, “My administration is the only thing between you and the gallows.
Reflecting on Obama’s words, Green warns: “Millions of people lost their jobs, their homes, their retirement accounts and fell out of the middle class. Many more live with an anxiety that gnaws at them. Wages were static when the crisis broke out and have remained static throughout the recovery. Recently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the share of U.S. workers in non-agricultural income has fallen almost to its lowest level since World War II.
This harsh indictment of post-apocalyptic capitalism captures well the conditions that have fuelled the fear of such pitchforks. Make no mistake, those who rule the major capitalist centers pay attention to anger, not to respond to it, but to divert it.
The history of American politics in the last decade is the story of how the forces that Obama and the Democratic Party failed to contain, restructured the world by unleashing energies on the left (Occupy Wall Street) and on the right (the Tea Party). The critical mass of conditions that led to Donald Trump had its genesis in these reactions?
Trump was able to prepare a campaign based on responding to anger with measures of economic nationalism, patriotism and, paradoxically, partisanship for the working class.
Of course, the idea that Trump was planning to build a workers party or intended to transform the Republican Party into a “workers party” is ridiculous, but it is remembered that his campaign was driven by anti-immigrant animosity with the argument that jobs were being taken away from them. When Trump declared his candidacy, Americans of all stripes were bitter with the ruling elites of both parties, and on that rests Trump’s opportunistic position of attacking them, including the Republicans.
Greg Godels concludes that only a concerted effort to create or nurture a truly independent, anti-capitalist movement that addresses the real needs of workers makes sense today, when bourgeois parties voluntarily sacrifice workers’ interests for the sake of capitalism.
October 1, 2018.
This article may be reproduced by quoting the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Trump’s Stuff and Nonsense at the UN
Trump’s Stuff and Nonsense at the UN
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Americans suffered one of the worst embarrassments they have had to go through in this century when their President, Donald Trump, arrived late and was unable to address the UN General Assembly in the first round, which, as the host country of the world’s highest body, was his due.
But that was only the first of a large number of gaffes that Trump has committed before the UN. The second was when he began his speech by stating that he was there to “share in the extraordinary progress we have made.” This caused an explosion of laughter in the audience of high representatives of the world community. The laughter rose in tone when he added “in less than two years my administration has achieved more than any other in the history of our country,…the US economy is flourishing like never before and we have the lowest unemployment in the last 50 years.
To that I would later add an inconceivable barrage of lies: “unemployment among Latinos and blacks and other groups has declined;” “we have passed the biggest reforms in history,” “America is now stronger, safer and richer than before I took office,” he concluded to the astonishment of the audience. He justified trade war against China and assured the world that the United States was not going to “apologize” for defending its interests.
Forgetting that he spoke at the United Nations, he said the US would not cede its sovereignty to the “bureaucratic” spaces administered by the United Nations. He attacked many of the world’s institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council.
Regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC), he said that it has no jurisdiction, legitimacy or authority and that it “violates all the principles of justice” and therefore the United States neither recognizes it nor will support it.
On international relations, he maintained the tone that defines him as a hero: “I have forged close ties and friendships with leaders from all over the world.” However, he didn’t allude to the rise in tensions with historic allies such as the European Union, Germany, and Mexico; nor to the worsening of their ties with Russia and China.
The main U.S. media highlighted the isolation of the country provoked or exacerbated by President Trump’s speech at the UN.
During his election campaign, Trump claimed that the world was laughing at the United States. Now it’s really laughing at Trump, says an editorial in The New York Times.
Yesterday the president apparently confused the UN General Assembly with a campaign rally, boasting that his administration achieved more successes than any of the previous ones. This was answered by laughter among those present, says the NYT. An editorial in USA Today questioned Trump’s isolationist policy, expressed in the slogan “America First. “The world’s biggest problems, such as climate change, terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, trade disputes or refugee flows, require international solutions,” the newspaper says.
CBS puts it this way: “After 20 months in office, the president is much more adept at burying the international agreements signed by his predecessors than at replacing them with something better. (…) The spontaneous response of the dignitaries to Trump’s speech demonstrated the isolation of the U.S. president between allies and enemies alike. Trump’s nationalist policies created divisions with former partners and cast doubt in some circles on the reliability of Washington’s commitments.
The news site Político also highlighted the growing isolation of the ruler that was shown during several speeches in the plenary. As an example, it cites the speeches by the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, and the French leader, Emmanuel Macron, both of whom defended multilateralism. “U.S. presidents used to set the global agenda at the United Nations General Assembly. Now they’re laughing at Trump,” Ben Rhodes, who was former President Barack Obama’s chief foreign policy adviser, wrote on Twitter.
It could be said that Donald Trump’s speech, full of nationalist rhetoric in this UN Assembly, served to formalize the abandonment by the United States of “globalism” and his embrace of “patriotism..” In addition, it reiterates the empire’s threat to not fulfill his country’s economic obligations to the organization, because these are “unjust” to the superpower.
September 26, 2018.
This article may be reproduced by quoting the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Singularities of Democracy in the USA
Singularities of Democracy in the USA
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The United States is a “democracy” only in the sense that citizens have a theoretical right to vote for a number of proposed officials. It is a freedom that almost half of Americans consider meaningless. This is why only 56% of Americans voted for president in 2016, and for Congress two years ago voted less than 40%.
Like most “democratic” socialists in the United States, Bernie Sanders, the surprising favorite of large numbers of Americans in the 2016 election campaign, conflates bourgeois electoral freedom with real democracy that empowers people to put the political economy at the service of the common good.
In doing so, he seeks to create a chaste foundation for siding with U.S. imperialism, says Glen Ford, executive director of the Black Agenda Report. His in-depth article was reproduced September 20 by the Marxist-Leninist website MLToday.
The U.S. is an oligarchy in which big businessmen almost always get away with it while average citizens and mass organizations have little or no influence in politics.
There is a dictatorship of the wealthy classes, says Glen Ford, recalling that the superpower is governed by oligarchs who, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1967, are also the biggest promotors of violence in today’s world.
Washington’s closest allies in this global mission are the former colonial powers of Western Europe and the former colonies of white settlers of Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The foreign policy of the superpower ruled by white multi-millionaires aims to preserve the global order of white supremacy that served for more than 500 years to keep most of the world under its exterminating and enslaving rule.
According to Ford, “it’s no wonder that Bernie Sanders, and so many other politicians who consider themselves progressive in the United States, avoid articulating clear foreign policy positions. That’s how two-thirds of progressive Democratic candidates for Congress act.”
An example of this is that Sanders’ supporters in the campaign team of Bronx Congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez left out of their program platform the paragraphs on “Peace Economy,” which denounced U.S. military interventions in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia.
A true U.S. foreign policy needs a list of enemies. Sanders found them in an authoritarian axis whose members “share attributes of hostility toward democratic norms, antagonism toward a free press, intolerance toward ethnic and religious minorities, and the belief that the government should benefit its own selfish financial interests. These leaders are also deeply connected to an oligarchic network of billionaires who see the world as their economic toy.”
The U.S. government, as the toy of 12 of the world’s 15 richest people, should be at the top of Bernie Sanders’ list. But no, according to his worldview, only Trump classifies as a world-class villain, even though he is, by himself, a minor oligarch than the rest in the whole.
But it is significant that the geopolitical center of this new oligarchic authoritarian axis of evil is not located on Wall Street or in London, but in Russia and China. They are seen as the enemies whom the warmongers of the Pentagon and the CIA pretend to fear and hate mainly the Americans.
Sanders does not clearly oppose U.S. imperialism. On the contrary, he offers a supposedly “progressive” justification for preserving it. The new oligarchic authoritarian axis of evil seeks to give “progressives” a reason to accept, and even love, U.S. militarism and imperialism.
Sanders wants the United States to improve relations with “our old democratic allies” in Western Europe because he believes that China and Russia are more dangerous malefactors and function as a single satanic unit.
Glen Ford’s essay concludes by expressing his hope that Sanders will achieve good results in the 2020 primaries, and that he will defeat all other corporate Democratic hopefuls for the nomination. But Ford thinks it will force the top authorities of the Democratic Party to sabotage Sanders’ own campaign once again.
“Sanders will never leave the Democratic Party, but perhaps a critical mass of his followers will come out of that capitalist pigsty in search of real, and truly democratic socialist solutions,” predicts Glen Ford.
September 24, 2018.
This article can be reproduced by citing the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Of John McCain and Other Truths
Of John McCain and Other Truths
The media has reflected that McCain’s wife will be the one to take office in the Senate, a practice that demonstrates the unique logics of American “democracy”.
—————————————————————–
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
John McCain, who ran for president in 2008, with his wife Cindy. Photo: Lasexta.com
He went to war in Vietnam and did so at ease, convinced that by bombing the people of that country he was helping the greatness of the United States, while striking blows against communism, then identified as the Soviet Union.
This is Senator John McCain, who died recently at the age of 81, who at only 31 was a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Navy and on October 26, 1967, during an action against the Vietnamese population, the fighter jet he flew was shot down by a Soviet-made missile during his 23rd mission to the north of the Asian nation.
After their physical disappearance, due to cancer, not a few stories and fables have been spread to the world by the big media. An attempt has even been made to establish a supposed critical stance against the current president, Donald Trump.
Little or nothing, however, is brought to the international community’s attention regarding the war against Vietnam and the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese deaths, many of them from Agent Orange, a toxic chemical used savagely by Washington.
The war in Vietnam – I am sure – scarred this man of war and the system he represented, not only for the five years he was a prisoner of the Vietnamese army. In this regard, the period of time between his death and the broadcast by the media of the most varied lies, exhibits as an example those that stand out in the supposed “torture” that the U.S. military suffered.
Today the mainstream media highlights one aspect of McCain’s posthumous letter, in which he emphasizes the the deceased’s recommendation that Americans not hide behind walls. “It’s a veiled critique of Donald Trump,” reports the northern nation.
It is also recalled that whoever was a candidate in the 2008 elections, had numerous public confrontations with Trump despite being colleagues in the Republican Party. In his posthumous letter he calls for understanding between different positions.
As an example of the media’s treatment of the death, John McCain lived at a time when the political, military and cultural power of the United States was unrivalled in the world.
The Republican senator was born a few years before World War II and came to adulthood at the dawn of the United States becoming a global superpower. “Now he is leaving during what is, perhaps, the twilight of U.S. domination as the nation focuses inward, concerned about the potential risks and challenges of immigration, multilateralism and the global economy,” says Anthony Zurcher, BBC correspondent in Washington, D.C.
Another issue that has not escaped the media hype has to do with the occupation of McCain’s Senate seat and the references that his widow, Cindy, will be the nominee, since an Arizona state law – very “democratic” in the style of the United States, by the way – determines that it is the governor who appoints his replacement until 2020.
Although there has been little time between the death of the former U.S. military man who bombed Vietnam and the media coverage with its excesses and adulterations, would it not be too much to ask that, in moments of recollection like this, at least remember what happened in Vietnam.
Or is it that the truth may be different when it comes to the United States?
Progressive Preaching by Sanders
Progressive Preaching by Sanders Left Its Mark
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders granted an extensive interview to a journalist from The Washington Post. He discussed the perspectives of the Democratic Party in the upcoming US mid-term elections, the possibility that he will run for the presidency again in 2020 and, if he is elected to the presidency, remains steadfast in his decision to be non-military in the Democratic ranks.
According to the interviewer, James Hohmann, Sanders has polished his image a lot since he launched his presidential campaign three years ago. His answers are now clearer and stronger. “According to the surveys I’ve seen, today there are more people who consider themselves independent than those who call themselves Democrats or Republicans,” said Sanders answering a question.
“Frankly, there’s not a lot of love for the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party, and a lot people are disappointed in both of us. That’s why I don’t think it’s a bad idea to declare that I am independent, but that I want my followers, as independents, to enter the Democratic primaries to transform that party.”
When asked if he will run in 2020, the 76-year-old politician responds that he or she is most likely to run as a candidate to the presidency but he will take that decision at the appropriate time.
His name will then appear on the Democratic primary ballot in that state’s primary. But when he wins, he’ll formally turn down the nomination and will run as an independent in the general elections. That’s how he ensures he’ll not have any Democratic competition.
He says he mistrusts billionaires like industrialist Charles Koch and casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson who incites leaders Republicans to embrace Sanders’ agenda. He is also concerned about the number of Democratic billionaires who are entering the United States. and who push the party towards more plutocratic policies that tend to entrench what he already considers to be “an oligarchy that exercises control of the country.”
Several super-rich people have come forward, either on their own or through political representatives who have inserted them in their pay slips as potential presidential candidates for 2020, such as Howard Schultz, Mike Bloomberg, Mark Cuban, Tom Steyer, Bob Iger, Mark Zuckerberg and Oprah Winfrey.
“Look, there are billionaires out there who are very decent people, who are smart people, who are well-meaning people,” Sanders said. “But they should have no better right to run for office than an equally decent and brilliant worker, but who cannot afford to raise the millions needed for a campaign.
“If you look at what’s going on in the Senate or the House of Representatives. Representatives, one finds that virtually every piece important piece of legislation that arrives there is funded by interests of the rich and powerful,” he said.
Sanders believes that many politicians from both parties do not criticize Israel for mistreating the Palestinians because they fear missing out on campaign money from big donors’ pockets. “Look, here’s the reality: I’m Jewish. I lived in Israel for a while when I was young. I believe in the need for Israel to be independent, free, safe and secure from attack by terrorists. But I also think it’s unacceptable that almost two of them millions of people live in Gaza, where the water is dirty, the youth unemployment is 60% and people can’t even get out of it. that area.”
“The reality is that, for many decades, Republicans and Democrats allowed this country to sign trade agreements that would benefit the major U.S. corporations, the industry, and the pharmaceutical company and Wall Street, but which were disastrous for the workers.”
In the interview, Senator Sanders urges the candidates in the mid-term elections to “have the courage to face the challenge of oligarchy.”
Sanders said that even candidates he doesn’t support or who aren’t aligned with him, are embracing the ideas he has presented, they are embracing him. which he values as a positive development. “The most important thing, and what we do our best to attract millions more people to the political process.”
“That’s why I think it’s important to talk to Trump’s supporters and say: Let’s face it, some of Trump’s supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic, but I don’t think most of them are. I think in many cases it’s about people who feel that the establishment has ignored them. And you know what? It’s true that the establishment has ignored them! Both political parties have ignored them!”
August 20, 2018.
The US Left Has a Past and a Future
- English
- Español
THE US LEFT HAS A PAST AND A FUTURE
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The United States is an atypical case among the most advanced industrialized societies because it does not have a large, national-level socialist party. The culture of that great North American nation emphasizes individualism and anti-statism. The role of government in society is much smaller than that of government in other parts of the world, for example in Europe.
During the period of the Great Depression and the economic crisis of the 1930s, many American socialists were hopeful that the time might have come to found a workers’ party in their country. But with the rise to power of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and his New Deal coalition, the working class became a prominent force within the Democratic Party itself and the union leaders saw no benefit in trying to pursue their ideas independently.
The unions were actively working to promote voter participation within the bipartisan U.S. context. After the Great Depression, the trade union movement channeled its support mainly to the Democratic Party, which, in turn, developed a policy of broad acceptance of people on the left side of the U.S. political spectrum.
In recent history, in addition to the well-known Democratic and Republican parties, the Reform Party (far right), the Green Party (left), and the Libertarian Party, have been registered for elections in the United States. In the 1992 and 1996 elections, the Reform Party gained notoriety with Ross Perot as its presidential candidate, who was accused by the moderate right wing of having damaged George Bush senior’s re-election with his participation.
In 2000 and 2004, the participation of Ralph Nader of the Green Party, who was blamed by the moderate left for taking votes away from Democratic candidates, was seen to have benefited the Republican George W. Bush Jr.
FDR is credited with this policy of blocking the creation of a great socialist party in the United States by opening the doors of the Democratic Party to trade unions and many progressive people during the Great Depression. That’s why Roosevelt is considered the closest president to socialism America has ever had. Before World War II, Roosevelt had to confront the forces of the right within his own party to advance his transformative purpose in the United States.
Anti-Roosevelt Democrats even formed the American Liberty League in the 1936 presidential election. The then governor of New York and prominent Democratic leader Al Smith urged her to oppose Roosevelt by proclaiming that “America can have only one capital, Washington or Moscow,” meaning that the Roosevelt supporters’ movement had too many communists and socialists in its ranks.
Roosevelt died in 1945 but, at the end of the war, the left-wing political army of trade unionists, intellectuals and black community leaders that had been structured to support Roosevelt still retained great influence within the Democratic Party. Within the Democratic Party, unions such as the United Auto Workers, the International Longshore Warehouse Union, the National Maritime Union, and the United Steelworkers of America had large pro-Communist factions and leaders of that political orientation, including several members of the National Negro Workers Congress and other civil rights groups directly linked to the Communist Party of the United States.
Many Roosevelt Democrats had a very positive appreciation of the Soviet Union and the role it played in the defeat of fascism. They had no objection to aligning themselves with the Communist Party and its political environment on local issues.
In this way, the balance of left and right forces was maintained until, in 1946, the anti-communist Cold War repressive operation under Harry S. Truman, FDR’s replacement, began.
During this period of fascist terror against the left, the first targets of the witch hunt were Democrats who belonged to the populist and pro-Soviet left faction entrenched within the party itself.
Alger Hiss, a State Department official who had played a key role in founding the United Nations, was one of the first to be demonized. He was accused of being a Soviet agent and ended up in prison for perjury. Both Democrats and Republicans were harshly repressed by their own parties during this period.
Now, with the advent of Trumpism, everything seems to indicate that new difficult times are approaching for the workers, professionals and progressive members of the American middle class. July 2, 2018.
This article may be reproduced by quoting the newspaper POR ESTO
LA IZQUIERDA TIENE HISTORIA Y FUTURO EN EEUU
By Manuel E. Yepe
Por Manuel E. Yepe Exclusivo para el diario POR ESTO! de Mérida, México. http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Estados Unidos es un caso atípico entre las más avanzadas sociedades industrializadas, porque no tiene un partido socialista grande de nivel nacional. La cultura en esa gran nación del norte de América enfatiza el individualismo y el anti-estatismo. El papel del gobierno en la sociedad es mucho menor que el que éstos tienen en otros países del mundo, por ejemplo en los europeos.
Durante el período de la Gran Depresión y la crisis económica de los años 1930 germinó en muchos socialistas estadounidenses la esperanza de que pudiera haber llegado el momento de fundar un partido de los trabajadores en su país. Pero con la llegada al poder de Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) y su coalición del New Deal, la clase obrera se convirtió en una fuerza prominente dentro del propio Partido Demócrata y los líderes sindicales no percibían beneficio alguno en tratar de llevar adelante su ideario de manera independiente.
Los sindicatos trabajaban activamente en la promoción de la participación de votantes dentro del contexto bipartidista de Estados Unidos. A partir de la Gran Depresión, el movimiento sindicalista canalizó su apoyo mayoritariamente hacia el Partido Demócrata que, por su parte, desarrolló una política de amplia acogida de gente situada en la izquierda del espectro político estadounidense.
En la historia reciente se han registrado para las elecciones en Estados Unidos, además de los consabidos partidos Demócrata y Republicano, el Partido de la Reforma (ultraderecha), el Partido Verde (izquierda), y el Partido Libertario. En los comicios de 1992 y 1996, cobró notoriedad el Partido de la Reforma con Ross Perot como candidato presidencial, a quien la derecha moderada acusaba de haber perjudicado con su participación la reelección de George Bush padre.
En 2000 y 2004, fue visible la participación de Ralph Nader, del Partido Verde, a quien la izquierda moderada culpó de restar votos a candidatos demócratas, en beneficio del republicano George W. Bush hijo.
A FDR se le atribuye esa política de haber bloqueado la creación de un gran partido socialista en Estados Unidos, al abrir las puertas del Partido Demócrata a los sindicatos y a mucha gente progresista durante la Gran Depresión. Es por esa razón que se considera a Roosevelt el presidente más cercano al socialismo que haya tenido Estados Unidos. Antes de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, ya Roosevelt tuvo que enfrentar las fuerzas de la derecha dentro de su propio partido para hacer avanzar su propósito transformador en Estados Unidos.
Los demócratas que se le oponían llegaron a constituir la “American Liberty League” en las elecciones presidenciales de 1936. El entonces gobernador de Nueva York y prominente líder demócrata Al Smith, instó a la oponerse a Roosevelt proclamando que “¡Estados Unidos sólo puede tener una capital, Washington o Moscú!”, significando que el movimiento de los partidarios de Roosevelt tenía en sus filas demasiados comunistas y socialistas.
Roosevelt murió en 1945 pero, al término de la guerra, el ejército político de la izquierda constituido por sindicalistas, intelectuales y líderes comunitarios negros que se había estructurado para apoyar a Roosevelt aun conservaba gran influencia dentro del Partido Demócrata. Los sindicatos afines al Partido Demócrata como el United Auto Workers, el International Longshore Warehouse Union, el National Maritime Union, y el United Steelworkers of America, tenían grandes facciones procomunistas y líderes de esa orientación política, entre los cuales se incluían varios asociados al Congreso Nacional de Trabadores Negros y otros grupos de derechos civiles vinculados directamente con el Partido Comunista de Estados Unidos.
Muchos demócratas de Roosevelt tenían una apreciación muy positiva de la Unión Soviética y del papel que ésta desempeñó en la derrota del fascismo. No tenían objeción alguna a alinearse con el Partido Comunista y su entorno político en asuntos locales.
Así se mantuvo el balance de fuerzas de izquierda y derecha hasta que, en 1946, comenzó la operación represiva anticomunista de la Guerra Fría bajo Harry S. Truman, reemplazante de FDR.
Durante ese período de terror fascista contra la izquierda los primeros blancos de la caza de brujas fueron demócratas que pertenecían a la facción de izquierda populista y pro-soviética afianzada dentro del propio partido.
Alger Hiss, funcionario del Departamento de Estado que había desempeñado un papel clave en la fundación de las Naciones Unidas, fue uno de los primeros en ser objeto de demonización y acusación de ser agente soviético para terminar encarcelado por perjurio. Tanto demócratas como republicanos, fueron duramente reprimidos por sus propios partidos durante este período.
Ahora, con la llegada del trumpismo, todo parece indicar que se avecinan nuevos tiempos difíciles para los obreros, profesionales e integrantes progresistas de la clase media estadounidense. Julio 2 de 2018.
Este artículo se puede reproducir citando al periódico POR ESTO como fuente.
‘
Russophobic Madness Affects the USA
Russophobic Madness Affects the USA
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, called on his country’s citizens to end the Russian-phobic madness that dominates Congress and many of the media in North America in a recent article in several U.S. media outlets.He cites as a blatant example of this, the New York Times’ leading editorial of February 17 entitled “Stop letting the Russians get away with it, Mr. Trump”, in which the newspaper’s editors repudiate Russia for interfering in the US elections and call for greater sanctions against it in order to protect American democracy’.
“It had never occurred to me that our political system, no doubt dysfunctional, was so weak, underdeveloped and sick that with inept actions on the Internet it could be damaged,” says Matlock. But the New York Times isn’t the only one accused. Most other U.S. print and electronic media have followed suit. “Increasingly, both in Congress and in the media, Russian interference in the 2016 elections has been accepted as a fact.+
Among the Russian actions that have upset the American establishment and are now presented as events that have contributed from Russia to Trump’s rise is the creation by the Russian government of a sophisticated television service (Russia Today or RT) that provides entertainment, information and propaganda to foreign audiences, including that of the United States. The magnitude of its viewers may be several times smaller than that of the big U.S. media, but it has undoubtedly weakened the monopoly on news that the Western media have had and has had a huge reception everywhere, not excluding the United States.
Russian leaders, like most other countries in the world, thought Clinton would be elected, but some senior Russian officials expressed a preference for Trump’s candidacy after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared Hitler to President Putin and urged more active U.S. military intervention abroad, contrasting with Donald Trump, who then spoke out in favor of cooperation with Russia rather than treating it as an enemy, Matlock says.
No one seems to have made even a superficial study of the effect of Russian actions on the vote. There is no evidence that Russian activities have had a tangible impact on the election result, says Matlock.
But the most important fact, obscured by anti-Russian hysteria, is that it was the Americans who elected Trump under the terms set out in the Constitution; the Americans created the Electoral College, which allows a candidate with fewer popular votes to become president, and it is they who manipulate constituencies in favor of a particular political party when it suits the system.
The Supreme Court issued the infamous decision allowing for corporate funding of candidates for political office. The Americans created a Senate that is anything but democratic because it gives disproportionate representation to states with relatively small populations. It was US senators who established undemocratic procedures that allow minorities to block legislation or confirm appointments.
For Matlock, just because the Americans themselves chose their electoral system does not mean that Trump’s choice is good for the country. In his opinion, the 2016 presidential and legislative elections represented an imminent danger to the nation. They have created potential disasters that will severely test the checks and balances built into the Constitution. This is especially true today when both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republican Party, which in turn represents fewer voters than the opposition party.
Matlock claims he did not vote for Trump, but he believes that the allegation that Russian actions interfered with the elections, or damaged the quality of democracy in the country, is ridiculous, pathetic and shameful. “And I should add dangerous because making an enemy of Russia, the other nuclear superpower, is closer to political madness than anything else I can think of.
The former U.S. ambassador concludes his article by calling on his countrymen to desist from the current Russo-phobic madness and to encourage Presidents Trump and Putin to re-establish cooperation on nuclear security, non-proliferation, nuclear material control and nuclear arms reduction, issues that are of vital interest to both the United States and Russia.
June 25, 2018.
Trump’s War Against the Elephants
Trump’s War Against the Elephants
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
One might think that under this title it would be appropriate to read something about the conflicts that affect relations between Trump, the narcissistic president of the United States, and the leadership of the political party that had him as its candidate for that high office.The Republican Party has had the elephant as its electoral symbol since 1887 when a cartoonist drew it in response to the Democratic Party’s electoral symbol, the donkey.
The donkey had emerged in the 1828 elections as a Democratic symbol as an expression of mockery by his opponents of the stubbornness and lack of intelligence attributed to the then-Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Jackson.
The insult was jocularly assimilated by the leaders of the Democratic Party who adopted the donkey as their electoral emblem, highlighting its capacity for work and its modesty. So the Republican elephant was born in response to the Democratic donkey invoking the mastodons for their memory, docility and submissiveness.
However, Donald Trump is not identified as a historic Republican or any other party member, since his political career has been characterized by repeated changes in party membership since he entered politics.
Trump sought the presidential nomination of the U.S. Reform Party in 2000. It was a populist formation of nationalist economic orientation founded in 1995 and ephemeral in existence. He withdrew before the voting began. He then considered running for high office as a Republican in the 2012 election, but eventually did not.
In June 2015, he officially announced his candidacy for the 2016 elections, and gradually became the favorite among the seventeen candidates in the Republican primaries. In May 2016, the last of his rivals suspended campaigning and in July he was nominated, with Mike Pence as his running mate, at the Republican Convention.
His campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in media interviews, on social networks and at campaign demonstrations were controversial. No few were considered false, but they were always widely disseminated.
He won the general election on November 8, 2016 against his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, and became president on January 20, 2017 at the age of 70, 7 months and 6 days, making him the oldest president to assume this position in his country. He is also the most affluent president, first without military service or political office before being elected and fifth in winning by the votes of the electoral college despite having lost the election by popular vote.
But, to return to the title of this commentary, it is curious that one of the many embarrassing situations Trump has been involved in stems from the accusations made against him for his support of elephant hunting in Africa.
Avaaz, a nongovernmental organization with more than 46 million members who protect nature and the ecosystem, which promotes actions aimed at protecting wildlife, has directly accused President Donald Trump of supporting elephant extermination actions in Africa.
A climax of this ruckus came when the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump, Jr., mutilated an elephant during a hunt in Africa and appeared in the world’s press in a photo proudly depicting the white hunter with a smoking rifle next to the body of a large elephant. The president came to his aid and ordered the lifting of the ordinance prohibiting such “diversions” because of the danger they posed to this species in danger of extermination.
But this decision provoked justified outrage in the world. While it met the insistent demand of many wealthy American hunters thirsting for the morbid pleasure of killing harmless elephants in Africa in order to bring their ivory tusks to their mansions as trophies for the sake of human dignity and their role on the planet, nature and environmental protection organizations mobilized and succeeded, through massive global protest, in getting the United States to renounce such an offensive practice.
Following the general rejection of the measure, Trump tweeted that he would put this decision on the elephant hunt on “hold” but, earlier this year, in an interview, he assured us that the trophy ban act would not stand for long.
Obviously Avaaz’s protest has continued and the issue of the elephants remains on Trump’s agenda and with it the confrontation between the US president and the Republican party’s electoral symbol that supposedly sponsors him.
June 21, 2018.
Where Will US Domestic Politics Go?
Where Will US Domestic Politics Go?
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The surprising performance of veteran Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential elections and the disappointing performance at the top post by the unpredictable Donald Trump have stimulated a very large part of the US public – especially (but not only) Democratic Party supporters – to believe that the United States needs a Sanders and a new party.
Many of those who reason in this way believe that the old Vermont politician should take up the challenge to defeat Trump in 2020, with or without the backing of the machinery of the historic “donkey” party. Others feel that the energy of a younger leader who would take up the ideological banner of the old Sanders, with the support of a new party with or without Bernie, should be available.
These and many other variations have in common the assumption that the current President Donald Trump has already dug the grave of the Republican party and his own with his performance in the first two years of his catastrophic term.
According to the most credible polls, about 60% of U.S. voters in general, and nearly 80% of those who are not affiliated with either of the two major parties, are in favor of the emergence of a new party of majorities.
Writing in the Huffington Post, September 27 of last year, writer and journalist Gail Mellor quoted Sanders’ words calling for “the unity of the vast majority of Americans to survive together, because if we start divided, we will not succeed”. However, she recalls that at least four times in the last two years, when she has been ready to start up a new progressive party, it has been Bernie himself who has blocked it.
According to Mellor, Sanders has been working to unify the deeply-divided and corrupt Democratic party – to which he himself does not belong – but, in practice, his position has not contributed to the rise of a new progressive political force with the potential to come to the forefront of the country’s leadership. This is because he has insisted on the survival of the Democratic Party with a different set of policies as a prerequisite.
The main support Bernie Sanders had when he aspired to the White House came from “Generation Y,” also called “the millennials,” names demographers and researchers give to people born between 1980 and the early years of the new 21st century, who represent 28% of United States voters today.
He sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 because young progressives from that party dragged him into an effort to clean up U.S. politics, end ongoing wars, restore social safety nets and confront climate change. They had not been able to recruit someone at the national level of the Democratic or Republican parties to lead the fight for this agenda who was not receiving money from global corporations.
Sanders, an independent (non-partisan), had held state and federal office without party or corporate backing for 42 years. Despite being a convincing, passionate and well-informed politician, he was a stranger at the national level.
It was the millennials of the Democratic Party and its environment, the supporters of the country’s withdrawal from imperialist activity, of a policy of cultural and political change, and of the reorientation toward social democracy, who made him a national public figure and led him to compete for the Democratic Party’s nomination for the White House.
Although formally independent, Bernie acted as a Democrat because he was aware that the two dominant parties of the system had closed access to the Presidency of the nation to anyone who did not do so through them. The Democrats welcomed Sanders as their candidate because he gave the party’s primary campaign an illusion of competition that would help its already elected candidate to legitimize herself.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) calculated that Hillary Clinton would easily beat Trump because she had a huge amount of corporate money, while Sanders, with the support of young progressives, was able to gather, in a short time, large crowds for Hillary Clinton campaign rallies.
It seems obvious that Sanders dreams of the possibility of taking the Democratic Party over, at the head of a vigorous minority movement. This would not be an easy thing to achieve but there remains the alternative, feared by the neoliberals of the party, of going on to the formation of a new independent progressive party.
June 4, 2018.
Tillerson Out, Pompeo In
Tillerson’s gone and Pompeo’s here
Posted: Monday 14 May 2018 | 07:55:29 PM
By Lázaro Fariñas
digital@juventudrebelde.cu
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
It seems that not only by going to Seville you lose your seat. For example, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson did not go to that city, but he did go to Africa, and he lost his seat. The man, in the best Trumpist style, was called and fired. It was so humiliating that they were not even kind enough to wait for him to recover from a bad stomach acquired in that region.
Worse still, to further publicized information no one needed to know. It is known that there had long been a series of disagreements between Tillerson and the President, and on countless occasions there was a rumour that he was going to be fired at any moment. Donald Trump never forgave the Secretary of State for publicly calling him a moron at the end of a meeting with several cabinet members. Vengeful as he is, the President waited for the most inopportune moment to humiliate him.
It must be said that this gentleman was at least called on the phone, since with FBI Director James Comey, they didn’t even have that courtesy and the man learned of his dismissal on television in the middle of a meeting with his subordinates in California.
When Tillerson returned to Washington, he was no longer Secretary of State, having already been replalce in that position by that time by CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
Who’s Mike Pompeo?
When this man was appointed by Trump to the position of Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, he was a Congressional Representative from Kansas since 2011.
For some time he was in the Armed Forces where he held the rank of captain. He studied at the Military Academy in West Point, where he graduated as an engineer, and then was admitted to Harvard Law School, graduating as a lawyer, a career he practiced for a while and then went into business, until he came into politics in 2010.
Pompeo, whose paternal grandfather was born in Italy, was a member of the Congress of the Italian-American Delegation. He belongs to the ultraconservative group known as the Tea Party, a group that is on the far-right of the Republican Party.
This gentleman’s credentials as an ultraconservative are impeccable.
He supports the killings being committed by the Israelis against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. He supports the method of torture by drowning [euphemistically called “waterboarding]/ He is against the closure of the torture center at the Guantánamo Naval Base. He was against the agreements that were signed with Iran. He opposes women’s right to abortion and he says that life begins at conception. He does not accept same-sex marriage. He iss a distinguished member of the National Rifle Association. He opposes the health care law that benefits the poor known as Obamacare. He does not believe in climate change, and opposes the United States signing the greenhouse gases treaty. I really don’t even know how you can be so reactionary.
At his Senate confirmation hearing, Pompeo moderated some of his positions. Of course, I knew he would not be confirmed if he held such an uncompromising position.
It is very difficult to know how this new Secretary of State will act.
It will be necessary to see if he can maintain a good diplomatic relationship with the rest of the world and if he can even stay in office having a boss as unbalanced as the one he has, a boss who likes to humiliate those under him; also, a boss who constantly contradicts himself and who constantly criticizes, lies and names his own employees.
Pompeo has a lot going against him. He declared a few days ago that he is in favor of Israel and of the crimes that that nation is committing against the Palestinians, in his favor he has the fact that he has tried by all means to avoid a war against the Democratic Republic of Korea.
He recently visited that country and met with its President. Now we’ll see if he can get Trump to heed his advice so that he doesn’t screw up with unheard of blunders when it comes time for him to sit down with the North Korean President. It is known that the White House narcissist does not like to take advice. Let’s hope he does listen to them at that next meeting, because if he doesn’t, everything that has been put forward so far to avoid war would go down the worst of roads.
You must be logged in to post a comment.