Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day12Fixed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Can the Left Mount a Challenge to Hillary?

The “Progessive” (aka, Liberal) Antiwar Movement: RIP?

by JOHN V. WALSH

Ralph Nader wrote a very perceptive essay in the wake of the edifying defeat of the despicable arch-imperialist, Israel Firster and reliable servant of Wall St. Banksters, Eric Cantor, at the capable hands of the libertarian leaning Professor David Brat.  It was titled “Can Progressives Learn From Eric Cantor’s Defeat”?  Can they? Yes.  Will they?  It is highly doubtful.  It is difficult to learn anything if you think you have nothing more to learn.

But here we are interested only in the lessons of Cantor’s electoral humiliation at the hands of Brat for the progressive antiwar, anti-Empire movement.   (For the significance of the Brat victory beyond the matter of war, see this.)  And by “progressive” we do not mean “Left.”  “Progressive” for some is merely a brand change adopted by long ago to escape the abuse poured on “liberalism.”  One looks in vain for a self-described liberal these days only because they have donned a new costume which they have already badly soiled.

Here are two relevant quotes from Nader’s essay:

“(The Brat victory) has several takeaways for progressives besides envy and shame over why they do not directly take on the corporate Democrats.”

“Unfortunately the driving energy of progressives, including the dissipating Occupy Wall Street effort, is not showing up in the electoral arena. The political energy, the policy disputes and the competitive contests are among the Republicans, not the Democrats…”

In summary, why are the progressives not taking on the corporate (and hawkish) Democrats in the electoral arena?  And what does that mean for the next presidential year, 2016?   Certainly it is desirable to have antiwar candidates in primaries of both major parties – and even better to have them win the nomination.  Thus, there are two electoral tasks for the broad antiwar movement in the rapidly approaching election year of 2016:

1.  On the Democratic Side.  The progressives must field a candidate to take on the bloodthirsty Hillery to make good on Nader’s challenge.  Otherwise, she could well be “the first woman” – to start a world war.  So far there is no one – and the undependable Bernie Sanders is not that person, as even a cursory reading of the late Alexander Cockburn’s denunciations of Sanders over the years makes clear.  Nor is that great American Indian, my Senator, Elizabeth Warren who ran for Senate as a hawk on Iran, a credible peace candidate.

2. On the Republican Side.  Antiwarriors here must make sure that there is an antiwar Republican running in the primaries and hopefully winning the nomination.  That person is Rand Paul.  And Brat’s victory over the establishment’s candidate bodes well for Paul’s success.  So the forces of peace are making headway in the GOP even though they face an uphill battle.

That leaves the Democrats without any anti-Empire voice. Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) will not do the job of challenging Hillary.  From Norman Solomon to Medea Benjamin they are notorious by now for putting Party over principle.  Other progressives operating outside the Dem Party, and few in number, are well defended, claiming that elections are for naught.  But history argues against this.  Truman, the architect of the unpopular Korean War was defeated in the New Hampshire primary, paving the way for an Eisenhower victory due in part to a pledge to end the war, a pledge he kept promptly.  Lyndon Baynes Johnson, the inheritor of a very unpopular war from JFK was also undone in New Hampshire, by the principled Eugene McCarthy, not the most “liberal” Democrat and a bit of a libertarian.  From that point on despite the best efforts of both Humphrey and Nixon to prolong it, the Vietnam War was over.  Primary challenges have an effect.  Ron Paul built a very powerful movement, especially among the young, with his 2008 and 2012 runs.

Other progressives will tell you that street actions like Occupy are the way forward despite the inability of Occupy to so much as articulate a platform, program or strategy.  And they are bereft of even a shadow of ideology and consistency having long ago abandoned the more traditional left precepts.  Most notably the decade of wars went largely unmentioned in their gatherings, in great part because they are now Obama’s wars.  Nader kindly describes Occupy as “dissipating.”  Strangely, some of these Occupiers find refuge in the Green Party, which is dedicated to electoral action.  The Green Party itself is a resounding failure.  Its perennial presidential candidate is a very pleasant, organized and well meaning person but is entirely too solicitous of “progressive” Dems to make an impact.   And she has not been able to win even a State House seat in very progressive Massachusetts, although she has tried.

Picasso said he became a Communist, because the Communists were for the peasants and he was for the peasants.  Often it is as simple as that.  What are people to do if they are for peace and the only viable force for peace is the libertarians, as was true in 2012?  Then they will become libertarian Republicans.  And we see that happening with many young people.  If “progressives” cannot accomplish a challenge to Hillary, they will be finished for the foreseeable future, probably a generation at least.  And that seems to be the way things are headed.

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com