Tag: Jill Stein

Blaming the Voters

W.J. Astore

Democrats Return to What They Do Best

The Democratic Party is returning to what they do best: blaming the voters for their defeat.

Why did Kamala lose? Racism and sexism. Duh. And white women. And Hispanics. And Black men. They just didn’t do what they were supposed to do, which was to vote for Kamala. After all, she was the candidate handpicked for you by the DNC elite. Geez, what more do you want? Look at the joy below!

You expected them to dazzle? Shame on you!

Remember Michelle Obama wagged her finger and scolded you not to expect Kamala to “dazzle”? Remember her husband berated Black men for not having Kamala’s back? I’m amazed that didn’t convince you to vote for Kamalove and Kamalot. Haters, all of you.

Of course, I channeled my hatred of women and Jews by voting for Jill Stein. But as a cis white male, nothing better was expected of me; I was always a lost cause. And by voting for Jill Stein, a Jewish woman dedicated to peace and against genocide in Gaza, I was obviously really voting not for Stein but for Trump. Duh.

I’m deplorable. I’m garbage. I’m a bad person. The only good people are those who voted for Kamala. End of story.

One thing is certain: It can’t be the candidate. It’s not her fault that she couldn’t inspire more voters to cast their ballots for her. It’s not her fault that she embraced the Cheneys. It’s not her fault she touted the “lethal” U.S. military and supported Israel and its genocide in Gaza. It’s not her fault that her track record in 2020 for winning support at the national level was abysmal. It’s not her fault she lost all seven battleground states despite more than a billion dollars spent on her campaign. It’s not her fault—it’s your fault. She didn’t deserve to be repudiated by voters—and you’re going to deserve your fate under Trump since you rejected her.

Some of you still want a populist like Bernie Sanders, don’t you? Sorry, that’s never going to happen. We the DNC would rather lose with a Cheney-endorsed neocon genocide-enabler like Harris than win with a principled populist like Sanders. Not just in 2016, not just in 2024, but in 2028 and all future elections.

Either you vote for the DNC Republican we give you or you get the RNC Republican we all deplore. Got a problem with that? Have you thought about leaving the country?

Addendum: If Democrats truly believe democracy dies in darkness under Trump, was a mediocre vice president with less-than-stellar political and speaking skills the best person to challenge him? If Trump=fascism, was anointing Kamala as the candidate without primaries the best way to demonstrate Democrats’ commitment to a fair process open to everyone within the party? Are voters really to blame when you give them no choice, no say, and no real power?

Breaking the Duopoly

W.J. Astore

Vote Blue No Matter Who; Vote Red Until Your Dead; Why?

I don’t meet many people who are happy with the choice of Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump. Kamala, an undistinguished vice president, was anointed by Democratic Party elites. Trump, former president and festering sore loser, remains a profoundly polarizing figure given to deploring “the enemy within.” It’s not an inspiring “choice,” is it?

Fortunately, my state ballot arrived for the November 5th election, giving me four other choices other than Blue versus Red.

The first alternate choice is Green: Jill Stein. I voted for her once before in 2016. She’s a gutsy and principled woman and I agree with most of her platform. She’s got my vote.

The second choice is Libertarian: Chase Oliver. I’ve watched a couple of videos of him. I’m not a Libertarian but I do appreciate and support the party platform and its position on war. To wit:

“As the major parties become more and more war-hungry, libertarians have been sounding the alarm about the unsustainable military empire since its inception. As president, I WILL end wars and bring the troops home”

For too long, our nation has been entangled in endless wars, leaving scars on our veterans and their families. It’s time to pivot to a foreign policy focused on peace. We need to end drone strikes and military interventions, and instead champion free trade and international goodwill. Let’s reclaim our role as the ‘leader of the free world’ by pursuing peace and serving as a beacon of hope.

I just might vote for the Democrats if they had such a clear statement (and true commitment) for peace and against war.

The third choice is Socialism and Liberation: Claudia De la Cruz. To be honest, I’ve heard of her but don’t know much of anything about her. Here’s a quick description from her website:

Claudia De la Cruz and Karina Garcia are running for President and Vice-President as the candidates of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Claudia De la Cruz is a mother, popular educator and theologian born in the South Bronx who has spent her life organizing for justice for working people at home and to end U.S. empire abroad. Karina Garcia is a Chicana organizer, popular educator and mother who has spent her entire adult life fighting for the rights of immigrant workers, women and the whole working class.

Claudia De la Cruz and her VP candidate, Karina Garcia. These two Latina look more mature and “real” to me than Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Contrast this image with Kamala’s “Vogue” photo shoot.

I like their focus on workers’ rights and also ending U.S. imperialism. I’d love to see these two Latina duking it out with a corrupt Congress on workers’ rights while advancing an anti-imperial agenda. Wouldn’t that be something? The possibility of real hope and change in DC. A man can dream …

The fourth and final alternate choice on my ballot is Independent: Shiva Ayyadurai. I’d never heard of him. He was born in India of Indian parents; as he’s not a natural-born citizen of the U.S., he’s constitutionally unqualified to become POTUS.

So, leaving aside Ayyadurai, my state gives me three additional choices to Blue and Red. That’s what a healthy democracy should offer: choice. True choice. Not just a thoroughly corrupted duopoly that ignores the needs of the 99% in its pursuit of money and power.

Before you say it, I know many people believe that voting outside of the Blue and Red hammerlock on power is a waste. Don’t vote for Jill Stein, or Chase Oliver, or Claudia De la Cruz. Don’t you know they can’t win?

Well, they definitely can’t win if no one votes for them. Candidates from alternate parties can only gain power and, maybe, just maybe, eventually “win” (in the year 2525?) if we give them our support and our votes.

Some people seem to think your vote is “wasted” unless you vote for the eventual winner. Or, your vote is “wasted” if you don’t accept that voting for the lesser evil (most often, Kamala) is morally sound and wise because you’re stopping the greater evil (most often, Trump).

But what if I don’t want to vote for lesser or greater evil?

Democracies should offer genuine choice. I realize third-party candidates in 2024 are unlikely in the extreme to win, but the only way to break the duopoly is to step outside of it and vote for candidates like Stein, Oliver, and De la Cruz who offer alternative visions. As more people do this, the duopoly might actually become more responsive to voters like us. Again, a man can dream …

I sincerely believe that no vote is wasted. What is a waste is being so disillusioned as to not vote at all, or to vote unthinkingly or out of fear for someone that you don’t believe in.

Vote for what you believe, America, and let the chips fall where they may.

Addendum: Viggo Mortensen on voting your conscience.

https://x.com/HotSpotHotSpot/status/1846062677489029317

More Money for Ukraine, More Weapons for Israel

W.J. Astore

And More War Under a Harris/Walz Administration

Whether they like it or not (and they seem very much to like it), the Democratic Party has become America’s war party.

The U.S./Ukrainian Flag on Biden’s lapel says it all. Zelenskyy, as a former actor, has his role down pat

This is especially true with respect to Ukraine. Zelenskyy has won another $7.9 billion in its war with Russia, prompting this “thank you” from him:

I am grateful to Joe Biden, US Congress and its both parties, Republicans and Democrats, as well as the entire American people for today’s announcement of major US defence assistance for Ukraine totalling $7.9bn and sanctions against Russia.

On behalf of the Ukrainian people and our brave warriors on the frontlines, I thank our closest ally, the United States, for finding a way to allocate the remaining security assistance to Ukraine and ensure that the Presidential authority is not expired by the end of the US financial year.

We will use this assistance in the most efficient and transparent manner to achieve our major common goal: victory for Ukraine, just and lasting peace, and transatlantic security.

I am grateful to the United States for providing the items that are most critical to protecting our people. An additional Patriot air defence battery, other air defence capabilities and interceptors, drones, long-range missiles, and air-to-ground munitions, as well as funds to strengthen Ukraine’s defence industrial base.

I also appreciate the decision to expand programs to train more of our pilots to fly F-16s, as well as the strong sanctions measures imposed to further limit Russia’s ability to fund its aggression against Ukraine.

Kamala Harris is committed to supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” meaning, I guess, some sort of “victory” over Russia, however unlikely that is. So look for a lot more dead and wounded Ukrainians and Russians and a world still hovering on the brink of nuclear war.

Over to Israel. Kamala Harris has pledged her undying and eternal support for Israel’s right to defend itself, meaning any action Israel is prepared to take, including genocide in Gaza. She has ruled out any curtailment of weapons shipments to Israel. According to the BBC, stemming the flow of weapons to Israel is a “left” position. Any sensible moderate and conservative is totally for genocide, I gather.

None of this is surprising, of course. When it comes to war, America is a uniparty of Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris. There is no difference among them, which is why Cheney endorsed Harris, and why more than 700 senior national security officials gushed about her.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, seeks to end the Russia-Ukraine War. Does that make him a “leftist”?

Of course not. Trump, like Harris, is totally behind Israel, and totally in bed with the military-industrial complex. Yet he’s skeptical of NATO and has an aversion to war and death in Russia and Ukraine, which for me is his strongest suit.

If you’re truly antiwar and seek a candidate who’s against massive military spending and imperial dominance, your best bet is Jill Stein and the Green Party. You know—the “crazy” or “fringe” people, according to the mainstream media.

Thursday Thoughts

W.J. Astore

A Vote for Harris Is a Vote for Cheney (It makes as much sense as a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump)

+ As if the world wasn’t hazardous enough, we now have to deal with exploding pagers, walkie-talkies, even solar power systems, apparently. Thank you, Israel.

+ Yet another article suggests that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump—and Russia. Maybe a vote for Stein is just a vote for Stein?

+ Yet another letter from more than 100 senior Republicans associated with the national (in)security state is telling me to vote for Kamala Harris for President. Maybe a vote for Harris is really a vote for Republicans and a neocon foreign policy?

+ Strangely, I’ve been accused of “hating” Trump because I dare to criticize him. No, I don’t “hate” Trump. I simply believe he’s not the right person to be president.

+ I got my usual fundraiser letters from Biden and Harris. There’s no vision or platform in these letters. It’s all about saving America from Trump and the end of democracy. There’s also vague talk about a better future. And that’s it. How inspiring!

+ Jill Stein got into trouble recently for being reluctant to dismiss Putin as a “war criminal.” What is a war criminal? Without consulting a legal definition, I’d describe a “war criminal” as someone who pursues aggressive war.  Of course, most leaders claim whatever war they’re pursuing is “defensive.”  They even avoid the term “war,” e.g. Obama’s “overseas contingency operations,” Putin’s “special military operation.”

So, “war criminal” is a bit like pornography, not always easy to define, but you know it when you see it. So, sure, Putin is a war criminal, but so too were LBJ, Nixon, Bush/Cheney, Obama, and Biden. Just look at Biden’s ongoing and fulsome support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Seriously, what the U.S. did in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were war crimes on a massive scale.  The Iraq invasion in 2003 under the false pretense of WMD was a war crime.  Meanwhile, the people who get punished for war crimes are usually low-level corporals and LTs.  It’s never generals and most certainly never presidents.

+ Trump, or TDS if you prefer, has enabled the rehabilitation of war criminals like Bush and Cheney, with establishment Democrats eagerly embracing both these men.

Now beloved by Democrats everywhere

+ A vote for Harris is a vote for Dick Cheney makes more logical sense than a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. Meanwhile, if you vote for Trump, you’re likely to get Dick Cheney as well, because I don’t believe Trump has the ability to resist the Pompeos, the Boltons, the generals, and the usual suspects he’ll surround himself with.

+ If Harris loses the election in November, it won’t be because of Jill Stein.  Or Russia. Or even Bracing Views.  It will be because not enough people believed in her. But if Harris does lose, I expect the DNC will blame the voters for racism and sexism, Putin for election interference, and Jill Stein for stealing votes from Harris. Naturally, Harris and the DNC will not be to blame. Now, if they win, all credit will flow to Harris and the DNC. It’s nice to be able to run for office where even if you lose, it’s not your fault.

Readers, what’s on your mind this Thursday?

Bonus thought: I feel like political criticism has become a bizarre zero-sum game in America. If I criticize Trump, that means I’m helping Harris. If I criticize Harris, that means I’m helping Trump.

Can’t I criticize both of them? Because I want neither of them to win. That may be unrealistic, I realize, but neither candidate speaks to my principles, beliefs, priorities, and goals.

So then I’m told: It’s the American system. Take it or leave it. And I suppose I’d like to leave it, meaning I’ll vote Green. And then I’m told that’s a vote for Trump! Or I’m told that’s a wasted vote.

So the only “valid” vote is for Harris–or Trump. But each side pretty much hates the other, so how is a vote for either “valid”?

Because both parties take unaccountable dark money, both are corrupted, both don’t answer to the people, both are tools of the plutocrats.

If I want to embrace and defend democracy, why would I vote for either of these parties?

And the usual answer is: Because Harris (or Trump) is the lesser evil. But does voting for evil ever make sense? Shouldn’t Americans be able to vote for the greater good?

I Want Democrats or Republicans to Earn My Vote

W.J. Astore

That’s What I Want

My friends alternately ask me whether I want Democrats to lose the 2024 election or Republicans because I criticize both parties at this site. In tribal America, you must pick a side. You must vote blue no matter who, or you must embrace MAGA and Trump.

Here’s what I wrote recently to a friend who, based on my articles here, told me I obviously wanted Democrats to lose:

I don’t want Democrats to lose.  I want Democrats to earn the win by pursuing more progressive and more moral policies.  I want Democrats to stop aiding Israel in its genocide, I want Democrats to be more aggressive in helping the working classes, I want Democrats to cut the Pentagon budget in a major way, I want Democrats to be against fracking, I want Democrats to pursue immigration policies that don’t involve more money for walls, etc.

I used to be a registered Democrat, so perhaps I write more critical articles about Democrats because I expect more from them (and because Democrats are currently in power). I have a good idea what I’m getting with Donald Trump and the MAGA crowd (remember Trump’s first term?), and it’s not something I want. I expect Democrats to offer something more than “We’re not quite as bad as Trump,” and so far I’ve been disappointed. Certainly, the positions taken by the Harris/Walz campaign have been contrary to many of my priorities.

What I said of the Democrats to my friend I’d say to any Republican as well. I want Republicans to earn the win by pursuing more enlightened and more moral policies. I want Republicans to stop aiding Israel in its genocide, I want Republicans to be more aggressive in helping the working classes, I want Republicans to cut the Pentagon budget in a major way, I want Republicans to be against fracking, I want Republicans to pursue immigration policies that don’t involve more money for walls, etc.

And I’m not seeing much of that from Trump, MAGA, and Project 2025.

That said, I’d also like to see inspired, visionary, leadership. I’d like to hear the unscripted voices of Harris and Trump to gauge their intellect, their ability to think on their feet, their empathy, their ability to answer the most difficult questions frankly and cogently while also displaying sensitivity to nuance. I’ve heard Trump unscripted enough to know that he’s often an undisciplined, divisive, even insulting speaker. Harris is largely being kept from unscripted events, but the recent CNN interview she gave didn’t inspire confidence and trust.

Of course, one can be a skilled public speaker (Barack Obama) and a major disappointment as president. But motivational and communication skills remain something that I look for in a leader. Can she or he inspire people? Motivate them? Bring them together for the greater good? For the highest political office in the land, Harris and Trump, to my mind, are less than adequate as inspiring and visionary leaders.

Jill Stein this year (Wiki)

People then ask me: Well, who are you going to vote for, if not Harris or Trump? Because I know I’m offending both tribes by not backing their preferred candidate. And I give an honest answer: I’m not sure yet. I may vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. At least she’s against genocide in Gaza, as well as supporting a range of progressive positions that I generally sympathize with. And then I’m told a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump (interestingly, I haven’t been told a vote for Stein is a vote for Harris, which is logically the same) . Or I’m told I’m wasting my vote since she can’t win.

If you’re looking to change my mind because I won’t vote for your tribal team leader, it’s not a persuasive strategy to tell me I’m stupid and wasting my vote or that by voting for Stein I’m really voting for MAGA. You’re just insulting me for refusing to vote for your gal or guy.

I urge all my readers to vote for the candidate who best represents your positions and priorities. And which leader you’d trust the most in a crisis to make wise decisions. I pass no judgment on which candidate you choose. I think this is a sound practice for all of us to follow.

An example: I was talking to a neighbor and she said she’s still voting for RFK Jr. even though he’s pulled out of the race and endorsed Trump. I didn’t vote-shame her by telling her she’s wasting her vote or that she’s voting for Trump (or Harris) by not voting blue (or red). I just nodded my head and moved on. She was an early supporter of RFK Jr., and she still wants to show her support this November, and I respect her choice.

Democracy (along with comity) isn’t advanced by hating on each other for the votes we intend to cast. Am I wrong about this?

It’s Morning Again in America

W.J. Astore

Mass Arrests and Mainstream Media Headlines Work to Deny a Genocide in Progress

Took a jaunt over to NBC News online for my fair share of abuse, and I wasn’t disappointed.

Here are the top headlines there:

“Biden administration faces pressure to step up its response to antisemitic incidents on college campuses”

“College campus protests over war in Gaza show no sign of ending”

Mention was also made of police breaking up a “pro-Palestinian protest” at Northeastern University.

You’ll note the framing and what’s missing: there’s no mention of genocide in Gaza, no mention of the more than 100,000 Palestinians already killed and wounded in Israel’s violent assault on Gaza and its people.

Students across America are protesting against genocide in Gaza. They want the mass killing to stop. They want America to apply pressure to Israel to halt murderous assaults by the IDF that end in mass graves for Palestinians.

But NBC is not in the business of admitting this. Instead, NBC is most worried about alleged antisemitism on college campuses. Or they frame the protests as anti-war, as if Israel and Gaza are engaged in a declared war between equals. Or they frame the protests as pro-Palestinian, not anti-genocide.

I especially like this subtitle: “The tumult spreading through college campuses is especially tricky for the president as he works to rebuild the voting coalition from his 2020 win.” See, the main concern for Biden is getting reelected, not trying to stop mass murder.

And I liked this lede: “As antisemitic incidents mushroom on college campuses, some Jewish leaders and lawmakers from both parties are accusing President Joe Biden’s administration of taking a lax approach toward enforcement of civil rights laws, exposing Jewish students to continued harassment.”

Harassment! We can’t have that. Arrest all those protesters. By the way, many of those protesters are Jewish. Are Jewish protesters harassing themselves by protesting against genocide in Gaza? Arrest them too.

Green Party candidate for president Jill Stein (center, in dark blazer) was arrested with students at Washington University in St. Louis. We must have order here!

I keep wondering where all these police are coming from. Shouldn’t they be fighting crime on the mean streets of America, taking on hardened criminals and upholding both law and order? Although I do admit that now the police have ample opportunity to don their riot gear (paid for by you the American taxpayer) and put their anti-riot and anti-terrorist training into practice. Fun fact: Did you know that more than a few police officers have learned anti-riot tactics and techniques from the Israeli military and police? Who says Israel doesn’t pay us back for all the scores of billions they get from us?

Twelve Questions for this Fall’s Presidential Election

johnson
Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party

W.J. Astore

Here are twelve questions for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, followed by quick answers about where they stand, based on what they’ve done as well as what I’ve heard them say in various speeches and debates.  To avoid any confusion with her husband, I refer to Hillary Clinton as “Hillary.”

Which candidate is going to:

  1. End America’s wars?

Hillary will continue them.  Trump has questioned whether they’re worth it.  Advantage Trump.

  1. Tackle global warming?

Hillary believes in science.  Trump apparently doesn’t, though he’s taken steps to safeguard his properties against climate change.  Advantage Hillary.

  1. Reverse Citizen’s United and get corporate money out of politics?

Hillary has said she’ll do something; Trump hasn’t.  But Hillary is dependent on corporate financing.  A wash.

  1. Work to reduce the growing gap between the richest 1% and everyone else?

Hillary talks about fairness, raising the minimum wage, and equal pay for women.  Trump wants to restore American jobs through tariffs and trade wars.  Whether either candidate really cares about the working classes is debatable.  A wash.

  1. Rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure, ensuring safe roads, bridges, and water supplies?

Both candidates talk a good game.  The problem is: Where is the money coming from?  Trump’s tax breaks that favor the rich may literally bankrupt America; Hillary’s war and social spending will absorb most federal funding.  A wash.

  1. Reject trade deals that hurt American workers?

Hillary was for the TPP before she was against it.  She and Bill were also for NAFTA.  Trump talks about helping workers even as his companies shift jobs overseas to save money.  A wash.

  1. Pursue a domestic political agenda that doesn’t vilify minorities and the vulnerable?

Hillary is far better than Trump at promoting a message of inclusion.  Advantage Hillary.

  1. Respect the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers, i.e. reject the “Unitary Executive” model?

Neither candidate promises to rein in executive authority.  Both are power-hungry and secretive.  A wash.

  1. Rein in the burgeoning national security state and its lockdown mentality?

Trump is seemingly more skeptical about military spending and is less encumbered by neocon conventions.  Yet he stokes fear of the outsider, which feeds the lockdown mentality that plagues America.  Hillary boasts of strengthening national security and cultivates hawkish elements while rejecting any cuts to war spending.  A wash.

  1. Work for quality public education?

Neither candidate has spoken a lot about public education.  But Trump has joked that he likes the under-educated since they’re many of his most ardent supporters.  Stupid is as stupid does.  Advantage Hillary.

  1. Reduce the prison-industrial complex?

Hillary’s husband’s policies are partly responsible for the complex, though now she says she wants to reduce America’s reliance on prisons, which target minorities disproportionately.  I haven’t heard Trump articulate a clear vision on this, except to vow “on day one” that he’d restore law and order to America.  Slim advantage to Hillary.

  1. Respect the environment, e.g. end fracking?

Hillary promoted fracking while she led the State Department.  Trump simply promotes business and making money.  I don’t see either as having any deep-rooted respect for nature.  A wash.

Score Card: Score 1 for Trump, 4 for Hillary.  And 7 for candidate “Wash.”

Stein
Jill Stein in Philly

What if Green Party candidate Jill Stein were included?  She might edge Trump and Hillary on all of these questions.  I think Bernie Sanders would score 11 out of 12.  His one failing during the primary was his reluctance to say he’d rein in the national security state.  What a shame Bernie is out, especially since he was beaten neither fairly nor squarely.

What about the Libertarians?  I have limited exposure to Gary Johnson, William Weld, and their party, but here’s a quick cut and paste job from CNN:

“First, libertarianism is more than just an economic ideology. It’s a social one. And many Libertarian social positions — an openness to immigration, an embrace of equal rights for gay, lesbian, and transgender persons, a hostility toward the war on drugs and American militarism abroad, and support for women’s reproductive rights — are arguably more progressive than the average Democrat. Libertarians were supporting marriage equality and marijuana legalization, for instance, long before any mainstream politician — Clinton included — would touch those issues.”

“Second, even on strictly economic issues, Libertarians have a lot to say that should appeal to those on the left. Libertarians have long been sharply critical, for instance, of the ways regulations such as occupational licensing requirements are used to protect the economically powerful at the expense of the poor and marginalized. They’ve fought against subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of “crony capitalism” that benefit the few at the expense of the masses. And — contrary to popular perception — Libertarians have often argued in favor of a well-designed social safety net to protect those who fail to benefit from the economic dynamism of a free economy.”

A quick look at my 12 questions coupled with interviews I’ve seen with Gary Johnson suggest that he’d easily score higher than Hillary and Trump but lower than Stein and Sanders.

Here’s the deep irony for America: The most interesting candidates, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, are the ones marginalized by the system.  They are not allowed to debate.  They are judged “not ready for prime time.”  And the weakest candidates, the most deeply compromised, Hillary and The Donald, are the ones who are given the lion’s share of attention and respectability.  They are celebrated.  They are prime time.

Only in America.