Nevertheless I was struck by two things Sanders said. At one
point he was talking about reforming the VA and meeting veterans. He mentioned
they defended his freedom. Earlier he said the Iraq War was a total disaster, a
mistake and that the rise of ISIS is directly related to it.
Thus I must ask:
If the Iraq Invasion destabilised the whole of the Middle
East and generated the chaos that resulted in ISIS and consequently has made
the US population and its interests less safe...
Then how is it that 'the troops' have 'defended our freedom'?
Haven't they been the willing or unwilling agents of
insecurity, instability and in fact hasn't the fallout from the rise of ISIS, (directly
resulting from the actions of the troops) made Americans and now certainly the
French less safe and less free?
I'm afraid Sanders comes across as a bit insincere on this
point. I realize to not defend the troops is political suicide. But if he's
trying to run as a revolutionary, then he must at all costs maintain his
integrity.
Secondly,
There was a brief mention of the US military budget and
Sanders talked about nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are not included in the Pentagon budget. They
fall under the Department of Energy. The Pentagon budget does not include the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the intelligence budget which funds
agencies like the CIA and NSA. Nor does it include State Department arms deals
and foreign soil counter-terrorism measures. Other quasi-military agencies like
the NRO (Spy Satellites) receive mixed funding in part from the Defense budget
and partly from the Intel budget.
The real 'Defense' budget or what should really be called the
National Security or Military budget is really upwards of a trillion dollars
per year. Basically one out of every three dollars spent goes to this
multi-headed hydra. It is the backbone of the US economy and the US system.
You will sometimes see charts that suggest the US spends more
on the military than the next dozen or so countries combined. A 2009 report
suggests of all the military spending in the world, 40% comes from the United
States.
That's if you go with the official Defense Budget. If you
account for the totality of the American Military machine, then the US easily
spends more than the rest of the world
combined.
This is unprecedented. As I've said before the only nations I
can think of that were this militaristic in terms of society and its resources
being marshaled for war are peoples like the Assyrians or maybe the Mongols.
America is quite literally a death machine. They can talk all they want about
the barbarism of ISIS. The US has killed far more than any terrorist group.
Bush and Obama have killed far more than bin-Laden or al-Baghdadi.
The US takes its place alongside the great murderous regimes
of history, surpassed by some to be sure, but there are far more below it on
the list than above it.
Sanders is talking about taking on the insurance industry and
breaking up monopolistic banks. Good for him. This is a vast gulf between what
he's suggesting and the Establishment policies of Clinton and the somewhat lame
'real Capitalism' comments by O'Malley.
Yet, Sanders is not challenging the military machine, the
heart of the system. It exists to serve the insurance industry, the banks and
the whole of the Military-Industrial Complex. Perhaps he's thinking that by
taking on the cause (the Corporatocracy) he can also eliminate the effect (the
Military apparatus).
Their relationship at this point is wholly symbiotic and the
various facets retain numerous mechanisms to generate crisis and ensure
survival. The survival of one is the survival of the system.
What Sanders is calling for is an absolute social revolution
through the franchise. There have been some huge changes in other countries
that have been implemented by the ballot. They've usually been followed by large-scale
war as the nation-states face systemic collapse.
I agree these industries and the US system are essentially
evil, but the fall of empires is often an ugly event. It's something to
consider.
That said, I think Sanders would be stopped long before he
ever became a serious prospect. If people are killed over a few million dollars
what will people do when we're talking trillions?
Finally, the question about blacks and the police was more or
less dodged by the candidates who resorted to esoteric sentimentality and
sloganeering.
No one will say it because it's politically suicidal. The
minority communities, particularly the black communities are facing utter
collapse. Race is an issue but it's exacerbated by economics. If
African-Americans had opportunities and some money in their pockets, something
to invest in and hold on to, they will begin to climb out of the hole they are
in. Most of the poor lack security and that leads to a lot of other problems. Blacks
are faced with an additional burden that some of the white poor can escape,
namely opportunity. Whites are more likely to find a way out. They can move and
reinvent themselves. It's a lot harder for blacks to do so.
This will require serious investment, an infusion of money
utilized to create jobs. When there's some money and security, along with a
massive reform of the judiciary and the penal system... no small task... then
black people can begin to stand up and take their rightful place in society.
This is not to say the problems of racism will be eliminated. This is not to
say there isn't a crisis of education. But kids cannot learn when their
families are unstable, non-existent or in a state of chaos. There cannot be any
opportunities when they are all but corralled into dangerous ghettos.
The problems are very complicated and perhaps the candidates
didn't want to go into details. It is really and truly that complicated.
And yet, the economics (to me) overshadow the other
questions. This may sound Marxist to some. I'm not proposing a Marxist solution
but there's something to the economic analysis. I know Capitalist orthodoxy
proclaims the government can't create jobs or wealth. This is pure
unadulterated balderdash and such statements can only be made when academics
play fast and loose with their definitions.
Am I suggesting redistribution? Yes. All public spending is
based on it. This is where Capitalism demonstrates some of its affinities with
Utilitarian thinking. Sanders best line during the night was when he mentioned
that we already have redistribution and the Right thinks its fine as long as it
goes the other direction.
Hoover embraced such orthodox Capitalist thinking during his
term and by the time FDR came into office, revolutionary movements and
Communism were in the air. Why this hasn't happened in the black community is
another long and tortuous tale. COINTELPRO, the penal system and many other
factors have done all they can to divide and break them.
Eventually they will succeed. I think the Establishment knows
this and the rash of new powers appropriated by the Surveillance State are in
part to suppress minority movements and all dissent. We're moving toward
thought-crime and the elimination of due process.
This will only extend the inevitable result and all but
guarantee that when the rising occurs it will be that much more radical and
violent.
Without a doubt, among the Democratic candidates Hilary
Clinton comes across as the most stable, in command of the facts and familiar
with the workings of the system. She would easily transition into the White
House. And yet we would have more of the same and she's quite on board with the
agenda of empire. The Clintons were the first 'Boomers' in the White House? A
couple of hippies? Please.
Some will remember the old show from the 1980's, called
Thirtysomething. It was about a bunch of 1960's activists who were nearing
middle age. Some sold out and some tried to stay true to their beliefs. This
theme often appeared on Family Ties as well and the ex-hippy parents contrasted
with the conservative son and consumerist daughter made for some good laughs.
The Keaton's as well as some of the protagonists on
Thirtysomething were sellouts. And yet, the Clintons have lapped all of these
characters several times over. The Clintons are a parable in the corrupting
nature of power. She may call it realism and getting things done, but in the
end she's a sell-out and her integrity most certainly needs to be questioned.
Sanders is sincere but I'm afraid naive isn't a strong enough
word to describe his vision and expectations. I think it's good that people are
being exposed to something a little different. He's not as radical as some make
him to be. But I wonder how many truly understand and how many are paying
attention. His populism is stirring people up but without context and a fuller
understanding I don't know how helpful it will be.
I'm with Donald Trump on O'Malley. He's a joke.
