The review provides some interesting insight into one such as
Power. During her tenure she was viewed by the Right as a Leftist, part of a
Far-Left administration. As I and others continue to insist, today's DNC is not
really a Left-wing political entity. There's a Left-wing within its ranks, one
that duplicitous figures like Sanders and Warren are labouring to keep within
its larger sphere. And yet there are also Centrists and then there are those
that could be called Democratic Right. And they're not a small faction. In fact
they dominate the party.*
Yes, these folks may be less than socially conservative. Conservatism
and Right-wing are not always the same thing. Our modern Left-Right divide
embraces the assumptions of the Enlightenment and thus in a historical sense,
all our politics are in fact Liberal. Modern political Conservatism is
sometimes a reactionary tendency within this spectrum and in more recent times
it often borrows values from pre-Enlightenment paradigms and thus in some ways schizophrenically
and thus inconsistently transcends our contemporary spectrum. The analysis is
of course complicated and to some degree subjective. And yet in general terms
today's American Democrats while 'progressive' on certain points are
nevertheless Right-wing when it comes to certain foundational aspects of the
political order. Are they always consistent? No. Have some come from a more
radical past? Yes. Some even embrace radical language when it suits them or
when campaigning. But once in power their Right-wing proclivities show. The
Clintons and Obama exemplify this. In the UK we find a parallel in the Labour
Party and figures like Tony Blair.
These Right-wing Democrats may be ambivalent with regard to
sodomy but willing to endorse it politically. They may be ambivalent on
abortion but any opposition they might have pales in the face of party loyalty.
As far as feminism goes, that ethos reigns supreme in both parties. Its style
is sometimes different but I genuinely laugh at supposed GOP anti-feminists who
champion Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham,
Condoleeza Rice and the like. Feminists all, their styles differ from one
another and from figures like Hilary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi or
even Jill Biden.
But Samantha Power is certainly part of the large faction of
Democrats that remain loyal to the Right-wing assumptions and proclivities of
American dominated Atlanticism and the post-war Americo-centric economic order.
In other words they wholeheartedly support the broad strokes of both the Wall
Street and Pentagon systems. They are rabid advocates of American Empire and
unipolarity. That cannot be called a Left-wing position.
These are hardly the intellectual or idealistic descendants
of SDS or the Black Panthers, let alone the Weather Underground. Additionally
by the standards of international politics today's DNC would qualify as
Centrist or perhaps Centre-Right.
Samantha Power champions US imperialism and the use of its
military might to compel other countries to bow in homage and submission to US
power and policies. Any entity which challenges this US dominating paradigm is
immediately a force for evil that is demonised and subjected to threat.
She willingly and even energetically threw herself in the
propaganda campaigns waged by the United States to achieve its goals. This was
true whether one looks at the Middle East or East Asia. Assertive to the point
of being reckless Power may seem like a voice of moderation when compared to someone
like John Bolton who also was Washington's UN Ambassador under GW Bush. And
yet, in reality, in terms of substance, they're not all that different. The
issue as is so often the case is one of style. Just as Bolton would demonise
anyone who calls out and would expose the evils of US policy, Power likewise
champions the lies of the White House, the Pentagon, Langley and the narratives
of the Establishment think-tanks. She whitewashes American crimes even while
she pretends to be a Cassandra, desperately pleading with the public to heed
her warnings. Instead we find she's really an American version of Ri Chun-hee,
the famous if absurd news reader for the equally deceitful Pyongyang regime.
She certainly played that role at the UN. As ambassador her tenure was a
disgusting performance of deceit, warmongering and manipulation.
Did the Obama administration try to reach out to Iran, did it
not always fully support the Netanyahu regime in Tel Aviv? While these issues were made into existential
questions by the American Right, the truth is once again a question of style. Today's
Republicans have forgotten their own history. They've forgotten GHW Bush's
rocky even antagonistic relationship with Tel Aviv and they've also whitewashed
the history surrounding Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev and Nixon's
rapprochement with China. These moves were castigated by the American Right at
the time. It was only later that these criticisms disappeared down the memory
hole and were transformed into moments of glory and triumph.
Netanyahu's Likud antagonised Obama and went around his back
trying to subvert him. Likud has a longstanding and very close relationship
with the GOP and functioned as its agent. It's hardly surprising that Obama was
less than keen to work closely with them.
With regard to Iran, the difference wasn't a question of
ethics or a different view of America, or some kind of inherent weakness to be
found in Obama, Power and their fellows. Rather, Obama saw Iran as the lynchpin
to dialing down the Middle Eastern war-chaos brought on by George Bush and
exacerbated by Obama himself. Why the shift?
Obama told us. China. He made it clear he wanted to 'pivot'
and begin to focus more on the East Asian theatre. This isn't a question of
weakness but a difference with regard to strategy and one that lives on in the
Trump era. Both camps support the assumptions of US imperialism and wish to
promote it. For the Republicans to refer to Obama (and thus Power) as being
weak, or hating America is pure rubbish, sound-byte candy for their ignorant
masses and FOX news viewers.
Was Power then in agreement with someone like Michael Flynn
that sees Moscow as a natural ally and the real threat being that of China? No,
but again that doesn't mean Power is a Leftist. If anything Power belongs to
the ultra-warmongering camp that wants to take on both Russia and then China
after that.
Some critics who would make that case that Power is an
über-Leftist might point to her husband Cass Sunstein who has argued for forms
of paternalism, but again this assumes the current Market-based imperialist
model. His advocacy of censorship and government infiltration of groups who
question the Establishment consensus are in keeping with the Right's continued
advocacy of McCarthy and J Edgar Hoover-ite policies with regard to
'subversives', non-conformists and dissidents.
Sunstein and Power represent the same Establishment long
opposed by the actual Left in the United States. The real marvel is not that a
'Leftist' like Power attained high office. She's not a leftist. The marvel is
that the American Left is nearly dead. It has been seduced in some cases and in
others merely lulled to sleep.
The notion that Power would present herself as an Idealist
and then take the stage and receive accolade from one such as Henry Kissinger
is enough to make anyone guffaw and roll their eyes. Evidently she is not a
serious person and yet I'm sure she doesn't realise just how absurd she
actually is. Power is a fool to be sure and yet potentially dangerous as she's
young and apparently seeks higher office. An unpalatable sort of person it's
hard to imagine her finding a lot of political success but then again after
Donald Trump, all previous norms seem to be in question.
Power seems to have at one time embraced something of a
Leftist vision or hermeneutic for understanding the role of the United States
and its empire. Clearly this has been abandoned. Has she made a grand
ideological shift, a pendulum swing to the Right? Or is it something more
basic... perhaps she just simply sold out. She would hardly be the first to do
so.
*Now almost obsolete there is another faction known as the
Blue-Dog Democrats who tend to be more fiscally and socially conservative than
the party's mainstream. Most of these figures migrated into the Republican
Party during the shake-ups and realignments of the 1970's and yet as the GOP
continues to move toward the Far Right or in other cases Libertarianism, it's
possible the Blue Dogs may make something of a comeback in the DNC. However
it's clear the DNC leadership wants to all but drive them out.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.