FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Swastika: The Hillary-Donald Show

The inversion of Joe Hill: don’t mourn for me, ORGANIZE. Today, more perhaps than ever, the message is clear, timely, appropriate. America is tilting so far rightward as to pose a menace to global peace. This is not Trump’s doing alone; for over a half-century US near-unilateral world dominance was being actively constructed and implemented by both major parties, with comparatively little resistance from the body politic. The Great Celebration is finally coming to an end, an international context of political-structural-economic decentralization as Russia, China, and the Third World have come into their own, nullifying America’s hegemonic claims to moral certainty and superiority.

Hence, the nervous display of ethnocentric-xenophobic power, Behemoth not giving up lightly, although the national image of Fortress America, aka, America First, strikes a responsive chord and formula for electoral success. The choice of living in the world or dominating it is painful to the largest military power in history, backed by a nuclear arsenal second to none, and fed all these years a constant diet of war, intervention, regime change, in sum, counterrevolution to hold all factors constant pertaining to American power and might—painful, but apparently, business as usual, against accommodation, the collective decision reached.

Trump works fast, prepared to shove cabinet appointments through, asserting through executive action a significant modification of trade policy, setting a tone of ultra-nationalism, but in the long wash hardly a departure from his predecessors on final goals: alternative routes to monopoly capital, the routes themselves predicated on a disposition to autarky and military strength. He works fast, yet, on close inspection, this is because the foundation for global supremacy, affording him this freedom of action, had been laid by those who came before: an unrelieved sameness of integrated domestic and foreign policy holding the world structure hostage to America’s intentions.

Wealth, whether national or individual, recognizes its own—similarly, power. When Monday (Jan. 23) labor leaders tramped to the White House, groveling at Trump’s feet, we saw the logical consequences of a movement that had lost its will, drive, and historical role as a progressive social force, accepting crumbs from the table of plutocracy. Shocking? No, because by-and-large affiliated with the Democratic party, labor had negated and denied its class identity and position. There are no Joe Hills or Wobblies today, more likely, instead, war hawks who seek a larger share of the war pie, itself steadily enlarged to fulfill a supposed Imperial Destiny. Clinton, meanwhile, is Trump in pants suit, even more militaristic than he, banking on a nebulous tradition of social reform to carry forward a belligerence in reclaiming international leadership to the setback of the world masses.

Poor Hillary, she has had ample role models drawn from both parties—not an independent bone in her body—in shaping her outlook. Yet, given the shrunken ideological spectrum, in which a valid Left either doesn’t exist or is negligible, she is currently hailed as a heroic figure wrongfully denied the presidency. If she had won, TPP and NAFTA would have gone forward, still not as the authentic democratization of capitalism, but the liberal (i.e., co-partnership of business and government, with heavy emphasis on the military) mode of wealth concentration. This liberalism is first and foremost antiradical, with national chauvinism running a close second easily channeled into uncritical patriotism.

Obama is now celebrated as a world-shaking democratic leader (this week’s New Yorker lead by George Packer), a willful distortion of truth to disguise—because he is black(?)—a core posture of Reaction and the bloodless invocation of violence. He is standard operating procedure in the formulation and conduct of policy. Neither Clinton nor Trump questioned drone assassination or the suppression of dissent at home, both confident their positions would find favor or go unnoticed. Cursedly, they were right, just as policies of rendition and torture do not draw criticism, and whistleblowers are threatened with jail. Rather than take each President in turn, beginning with Truman through the likes of Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bill Clinton, and the two Bushes, it is sufficient to note that continuities in foreign policy have received acceptance and accolades as the mark of wise statesmanship, as domestic policy meanwhile unrelievedly and steadily contributed to the maldistribution of wealth, spoliation of the environment, solipsistic human relations, an ethos of greed, a mindset of nirvana-like splendor and self-righteousness.

The ecstasy of Vietnam, the state of rapture in bringing crushing death to a near-helpless people, who, in fighting back, merely intensified the hatred shown them, typifies the mid-point of where we are at as a nation. Donald and Lyndon are not that far apart (if at all), a Republican and a Democrat, nor are Kennedy and Hillary, in this case, both Democrats. Nor Harry and Reagan, both specialists in Cold War intervention, again from presumably rival parties. There is plenty of ecstasy to go around, and more to come, whichever party is in power. Fortress America is not a gated community in macrocosm. The gates will stand open for the armies marching out, as the military budget threatens to dwarf all else. Civil liberties, already a casualty (did, from the start, the Democrats put up effective opposition to McCarthyism?), can only look forward to further deprivation and suspicion.

Am I too pessimistic? I can only say, prove me wrong—before it is too late. And of course, not me, but it will take tens of millions to turn the situation around. I fear that will not happen, the poisons of a false consciousness, Nazified in tenor, having become sunk too deeply over time in the American psyche. Bill, Hillary, and Barack made Trump possible by happily engaging in the process of continuity—conduct expected of Republicans, but not (although it should have been) expected of Democrats.

More articles by:

Norman Pollack Ph.D. Harvard, Guggenheim Fellow, early writings on American Populism as a radical movement, prof., activist.. His interests are social theory and the structural analysis of capitalism and fascism. He can be reached at pollackn@msu.edu.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
February 24, 2020
Stephen Corry
New Deal for Nature: Paying the Emperor to Fence the Wind
M. K. Bhadrakumar
How India’s Modi is Playing on Trump’s Ego to His Advantage
Jennifer Matsui
Tycoon Battle-Bots Battle Bernie
Robert Fisk
There’s Little Chance for Change in Lebanon, Except for More Suffering
Rob Wallace
Connecting the Coronavirus to Agriculture
Bill Spence
Burning the Future: the Growing Anger of Young Australians
Eleanor Eagan
As the Primary Race Heats Up, Candidates Forget Principled Campaign Finance Stands
Binoy Kampmark
The Priorities of General Motors: Ditching Holden
George Wuerthner
Trojan Horse Timber Sales on the Bitterroot
Rick Meis
Public Lands “Collaboration” is Lousy Management
David Swanson
Bloomberg Has Spent Enough to Give a Nickel to Every Person Whose Life He’s Ever Damaged
Peter Cohen
What Tomorrow May Bring: Politics of the People
Peter Harrison
Is It as Impossible to Build Jerusalem as It is to Escape Babylon?
Weekend Edition
February 21, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Election Con 2020: Exposing Trump’s Deception on the Opioid Epidemic
Joshua Frank
Bloomberg is a Climate Change Con Man
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Billion Dollar Babies
Paul Street
More Real-Time Reflections from Your Friendly South Loop Marxist
Jonathan Latham
Extensive Chemical Safety Fraud Uncovered at German Testing Laboratory
Ramzy Baroud
‘The Donald Trump I know’: Abbas’ UN Speech and the Breakdown of Palestinian Politics
Martha Rosenberg
A Trump Sentence Commutation Attorneys Generals Liked
Ted Rall
Bernie Should Own the Socialist Label
Louis Proyect
Encountering Malcolm X
Kathleen Wallace
The Debate Question That Really Mattered
Jonathan Cook
UN List of Firms Aiding Israel’s Settlements was Dead on Arrival
George Wuerthner
‘Extremists,’ Not Collaborators, Have Kept Wilderness Whole
Colin Todhunter
Apocalypse Now! Insects, Pesticide and a Public Health Crisis  
Stephen Reyna
A Paradoxical Colonel: He Doesn’t Know What He is Talking About, Because He Knows What He is Talking About.
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A New Solar Power Deal From California
Richard Moser
One Winning Way to Build the Peace Movement and One Losing Way
Laiken Jordahl
Trump’s Wall is Destroying the Environment We Worked to Protect
Walden Bello
Duterte Does the Right Thing for a Change
Jefferson Morley
On JFK, Tulsi Gabbard Keeps Very Respectable Company
Vijay Prashad
Standing Up for Left Literature: In India, It Can Cost You Your Life
Gary Leupp
Bloomberg Versus Bernie: The Upcoming Battle?
Ron Jacobs
The Young Lords: Luchadores Para La Gente
Richard Klin
Loss Leaders
Gaither Stewart
Roma: How Romans Differ From Europeans
Kerron Ó Luain
The Soviet Century
Mike Garrity
We Can Fireproof Homes But Not Forests
Fred Baumgarten
Gaslighting Bernie and His Supporters
Joseph Essertier
Our First Amendment or Our Empire, But Not Both
Peter Linebaugh
A Story for the Anthropocene
Danny Sjursen
Where Have You Gone Smedley Butler?
Jill Richardson
A Broken Promise to Teachers and Nonprofit Workers
Binoy Kampmark
“Leave Our Bloke Alone”: A Little Mission for Julian Assange
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail