Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Electoral Politics Page 24 of 31

The Problem with Hillary Clinton

By

On December 21, 2015

43 Comments

Hilary Clinton Secretary of State Portrait

Hilary Clinton Secretary of State Portrait

A lot of people don’t like Hillary. Some on the left even hate her.

For a few, it may be because she is a woman. For most it has much more to do with policy.

Pretending that people are unreasonable when they hate a politician who voted for a war which was a war crime is good spin, but it’s not honest.

Hillary Clinton voted for war with Iraq. She defended that vote for years, though she now says it was a mistake.

Hillary Clinton defended the “Welfare Reform” put in place by her husband.

Hillary Clinton was for the Patriot Act.

Hillary Clinton voted for TARP.

There are real reasons to dislike, and even hate, Clinton.

Let us be clear, I do not hate Clinton. In 2008, I supported John Edwards, but when he dropped out, I supported Hillary. I did so, because after reading her platform and Obama’s, I decided she was slightly to his left. I also believed she would be far more likely to remove Bush apparatchniks from government posts, something Obama eventually did not do. I believed that Clinton was slightly to Obama’s right on foreign affairs, but not enough to matter.

The fact that Obama made Clinton his Secretary of State indicates I was correct on that last point.

Indeed, when Clinton said she was staying in the primary race because you never know what might happen, and the left-o-sphere exploded with accusations that she was calling for him to be assassinated, I defended her, and I believe I was the only person who did so on Huffington Post’s front page.

None of this is to say that Clinton was, then, a good candidate, simply that I considered her better than Obama.

So, I don’t hate Clinton. I don’t even dislike her. I am only one step from her, I know a LOT of people who know her, some of whom are her friends. By all accounts, she is a very likable person.

But, based on her policy decisions, she is either monstrous, or has terrible judgment. She is, at best, a “Lesser Evil” candidate. It is not deranged for people to dislike her or even hate her–she has supported policies which have impoverished  and killed millions. If that isn’t reason enough to hate someone, I don’t know what is.

Of course there are those who do hate her for being an uppity woman, or for various conspiracy reasons (Vince Foster!), but it’s perfectly possible to hate her based simply on her public policy positions over the years.

I don’t like Sanders that much. He’s far better than Clinton on domestic issues, and he’s been on the right side of some important foreign policy issues, but he’s quite problematic on foreign affairs overall. Still, he’s clearly been better than Clinton on enough big items that matter, which is to say that, yes, if you’re a Democratic Primary voter, I think you should vote for Sanders.

Hillary also appears to have become worse on Foreign Affairs over the years. Her hatred of Putin and Russia, in particular, worries me. It feels to me that Clinton still views Russia as the USSR, and that she personally dislikes Putin (not surprising, given he has personally denigrated her for being a woman).

I don’t see Russia as that significant of a threat, and I think treating it as if it is one is more likely to make it one. I also don’t like saber-rattling against a nation which has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world multiple times over.

Hillary is a conservative politician with bad judgment. Bernie is a left-center candidate whose policy suggestions would be mainstream in most European countries (for instance, real universal health care).

Hillary is good on women’s rights and she is a woman herself. There is an argument that having a woman president is important. It is, from a left-wing perspective, the only strong argument I can think of for choosing Hillary over Sanders.

But, to me, at least, it doesn’t trump voting for the Iraq war. That’s a lot of dead people to write off.

Your mileage may vary.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

UK Labour By-Election Victory

By

On December 4, 2015

6 Comments

Not only did Labour win, but they won with a record vote count. The candidate is quite a bit to Corbyn’s right, but it’s safe to say that this was about the national party, not about the candidate.

Meanwhile Corbyn has the highest approval ratings of any UK political party leader, though those ratings are negative. Yes, every other leader is hated more than he is.

Both these results are remarkable given the relentless media campaign against Corbyn.

As far as I can see, Corbyn, and the old-left he represents (Corbyn being essentially a 1960s Liberal), face two main problems: the MPs within his own caucus who are good “middle-way” Blairites and the media.

As for Corbyn’s first problem, the Blairites have now outed themselves, and those who voted for war in Syria flagged themselves. It’s not Corbyn’s job to deal directly with those pro-war MPs–that responsibility falls on the Labour Party membership. Labour’s rank and file need to make sure that these MPs are not candidates in the next election. Corbyn shouldn’t have to tell them this; it should be obvious.

Now for Corbyn’s second problem: the media. The media have overplayed their hand; their virtual unanimity, along with their nitpicking on the smallest of details, has made them look deranged. What harm they could do, they have done, and there is little ammunition left.

Corbyn reminds me a lot of Canada’s New Democratic Party Leader, Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair lost the Canadian election, but he went into the election with a lead because he had proven again and again that he was a man of integrity, that he had principles he would hold to no matter what.

Corbyn is similar. He has principles, and he has stuck to those principles for decades, even when the path to success appeared to call for abandoning them. The fact that the media hates him is not an unalloyed negative–in fact, it positions him solidly as an outsider. This is a good thing when a huge chunk of the electorate is looking for somebody who does not have the approval of The Powers That Be.

As with Mulcair, I think that Corbyn is likely to have his chance to win an election. Likewise (as with Mulcair), either Corbyn can blow it, or his luck can turn (or both). But he should have a good shot.

This is extraordinarily promising. The old order is breaking down, due to the enforcement of austerity and their continued emphasis on war, when any fool can see that neither austerity nor war have worked.

The propaganda machine is failing. You can see it in the US, where the relentless demonization of Trump simply has not worked (don’t get me wrong, Trump is damn near fascist, unlike Corbyn). People are looking for leaders who don’t parse as tools.

This can be good, and it can be bad. In the 30s, Germany got Hitler, Italy got Mussolini, and America got FDR.

This time around, Britain has a chance to get Corbyn, a genuinely good and principled man. May they be lucky enough to do so.

And the elites in the UK should remember that Corbyn is the best deal they are likely to get. If they do manage to stop him, the next person who parses as independent of their whims, either from the right or left, will be someone who intends to bring them to heel, or liquidate them.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

What Is the Cost of NDP Losing Canada?

By

On October 21, 2015

18 Comments

Canadian Flag

The Maple Leaf

Many voters were in “Anyone but Harper” mode, but an NDP victory would have restructured Canadian politics for a generation, and very likely more. The NDP collapse to third place was a disaster for the majority of Canadians.

Canada has been ruled by either the Conservatives (in different incarnations) or the Liberals, since Confederation. The Liberals ran the lion’s share of that, but the Conservatives had their runs, as well.

The Liberal party would campaign left and “govern center,” which, since the 90s, meant embracing the neoliberal consensus.

In every election, the NDP would show worse numbers than those of its natural support base because of strategic voting; left-wingers would run to the Liberal Party to “Stop the Conservatives.” Often, this wasn’t even necessary. In many ridings, the competition was between a Liberal and a NDPer.

As a result of this dynamic, Canada has been run as a much more conservative-centrist country than is justified by the beliefs of the population.

Additionally, the First Past the Post electoral systems reward a geographic clustering of the vote, leading to parties being rewarded for serving regional interests and inflaming regional prejudices. A clustered body of support (as with the Conservatives in Alberta and the West in general, or the Bloc Quebecois) would reap a disproportionate number of MPs.

In this election, what was at stake was a chance to change this dynamic.

The “run to the party which can beat the Conservatives” dynamic could have been transferred to the NDP–and almost was (remember, they had the lead going in to the campaign). Once that had been the case for a few elections, it would be as natural to people as the old “run to the Liberals” dynamic.

But transferring that dynamic is not what the NDP wanted. What they wanted was electoral reform so that people didn’t need to vote strategically to stop the Conservatives.

Just one elected NDP government managing to implement electoral reform would change the entire nature of Canadian politics. These would make another Harper impossible for a generation or two. They would mean that most governments would be coalition governments, with the natural coalition being Liberal-NDP, and with Conservative coalitions being much milder because they must rule with a more left-wing party on their flank.

Canada’s population is center-left. Sixty percent of the voting population would never vote Conservative. Electoral change would help Canada’s governments to reflect that, rather than being about the committed plurality, leaving us with eight to ten years of Conservative rule every 25 years or so.

This is what was at stake in the last election. It was a Big Deal.

The worry now is that we’re back to status quo. The Liberals and Conservatives swap being in government, the Liberals run to the left and govern to the center and Canada continues its nasty rightward trend (of which the Liberal governments of the 90s and 00s were a part) with some jogs leftward, primarily on social issues (which are important, but don’t trump the damage of neoliberal economics).

This election mattered, and it should have been about much more than “Get Harper Out.” Conservatives were not destroyed by this election. They did fine, they just took a normal loss. The party that was devastated was the NDP.

The price of that is likely to be severe, and this is true even if Justin Trudeau keeps the majority of his promises.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Canadian Election Today, Monday, October 19th

By

On October 18, 2015

15 Comments

At the beginning of the election, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) was leading, Conservatives were in second, and the Liberal Party was in third.

Now that we’re going into the election, the Liberals are polling first, Conservatives second, and the NDP is third.

What happened? As I’ve been distracted this election, I asked one of the savviest Canadian observers I know for his thoughts.

For much of the election, the NDP and Liberals were polling even. Then Harper started demonizing Niqabs.

Unfortunately, this strategy played well in the province of Quebec and because the NDP was not on board with it, their numbers in that province crashed.

This dropped NDP’s numbers below the Liberal party.

Next, the “Anyone But Harper” dynamic kicked in. With dropping numbers in Quebec, the NDP’s national numbers began to look bad. At that point, those on the left who wanted Harper out more than they cared about who would replace him flocked to the Liberals as the party which could displace Harper.

We’ll see how the actual election runs. Polls have been unreliable in a number of elections lately. Still, it doesn’t look good for the NDP.

The Liberals, under Justin Trudeau, have voted for most of Harper’s signature bills, including C51 (which gutted civil liberties.) If the Liberals get into office, they will be 90 percent as neo-liberal as the Conservatives, but less obnoxious about it.

The best chance now for a decent government is if the Liberals get a minority and make a deal with the NDP for support.

This is disappointing, but at the end of the day, Canadians will get the government they deserve. Mulcair has spent years opposing Harper while Trudeau has supported him. Any Canadian paying one iota of attention should know this.

And if making it so Muslim women can’t wear the Niqab is more important to Quebec than voting for an actual left-wing government, well, yes, sorry, “deserve” is the right word.

Still, we’ll see. Fingers crossed.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

So, You Supported Corbyn: Here Is What You MUST Do if He Is to Survive and Win

By

On September 14, 2015

21 Comments

Intra-party war is coming in the British Labour party. I agree entirely with Salvage:

There is war coming in the Labour Party. Already, the bad-faith resignations and rumour-mongering of leading right-wingers signals the scale of resistance Corbyn will face—

—When their onslaught begins in earnest, they will be fighting with the party machinery at their disposal. They will be fighting with the press on their side, with the Tories as tacit allies, with business at their backs. They will have the support of the civil service and the state apparatuses. They will undoubtedly benefit from Clockwork Orange-style deep-state intrigue. But, far more fundamentally, they will benefit from the fact that Corbyn is obliged to work with a parliamentary party that is overwhelmingly hostile to what he wishes to achieve, and is apt either to force him to make damaging compromises, or to engineer habitual crises for him, or both.

So, you voted for Corbyn. You’re a Labour party member, old or new. What MUST you do to have Corbyn’s back?

Because, be clear, he will fail without you. He will lose. He and a few allies within the Labour party cannot win this fight alone. He will be destroyed by lack of cooperation, scandals, and engineered crises. The vast majority of all media coverage will be negative, etc.

You must take over the locals—the branches and constituencies. Flood them. If the officers don’t act how you think they should, let them know. And by “let them know,” I mean, get in their faces.

Make sure your local MP, who probably doesn’t like Corbyn or support him, know that if he doesn’t get onside, he won’t be the nominee in the next election. Make his/her life personally unpleasant. If s/he votes against Corbyn, picket him. Mock her. Make sure there is a cost. Because on the other side, that MP will know that if they oppose Corbyn, they will be taken care of by the City and the other usual suspects.

You must prove there is a cost for opposing the democratic will of the majority of Labour party members. MPs and officials must know that if they try to sabotage Corbyn, their days in the party are numbered and will be extremely unpleasant.

The carrot is that if they get onside, they’re gold. They can keep their positions, they can feel like they’re part of a swelling horde.

But if it isn’t clear to officials and MPs that the cost for opposing Corbyn is too high, they will, and they may well win.

You elected Corbyn, but without your staying in his corner, and fighting, he’s just a sacrificial goat. A real leader is only as good as his followers. You have a real leader now, a man who genuinely wants to create a kinder, fairer Britain, a man who has lived his life in line with his beliefs.

This is what and who you wanted. Now go and make him a success. If he fails, it will be as much on you as on him.

If he succeeds, the same.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

So, Corbyn Is Now the Labour Leader in the UK

By

On September 12, 2015

15 Comments

I am more than pleased. First round victory. Given how vilified he has been by most of the UK press, this is remarkable. We can expect that such attacks will continue.

Some shadow cabinet ministers are resigning. This is good; if they can’t be onside, they shouldn’t be in the shadow cabinet. (Though one suspects they are getting out before being kicked out.)

I’ll have more to say on Corbyn going forward. Also of great interest are Sanders in the US Democratic Primary and the ongoing Canadian election. While Sanders and Mulcair are both problematic on foreign affairs in ways that Corbyn isn’t, both are a big upgrade from the status quo.

We may be at the beginning of a realignment of possibilities, where the electable spectrum changes radically. The last one, in the Anglosphere, ran from 1976 to about 1984, and destroyed the old left.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Look, Trump’s Policies Are Nativist Populism

By

On August 31, 2015

19 Comments

He supports Social Security.

He wants universal healthcare (something better than Obamacare, which is not universal healthcare).

He believes in a bilateral trade policy rather than “free trade.”

Now Trump wants to increase taxes on the rich, including getting rid of the carried interest exemption, which would hammer hedge fund managers and so on, whom Trump is correct about: They build nothing—in fact, they are a drain on the economy, straight and simple.

This is married to a nasty, anti-immigrant side, of course, and to some equally nasty social positions. However, on economics Trump is proposing some stuff that any progressive should want, and which has been anathema to the Republican party since Reagan. (In 2000, Trump was for some stuff, like eliminating capital gains taxes, a position with which everyone should agree.)

Moreover, he is winning with these proposals, showing that right wing economic populism is still powerful: It was simply not being represented by the Republican party (or the Democratic party, for that matter).

Trump, Sanders, and Corbyn are all showing what is actually possible, if you dare to propose it. Positions which have polled with majorities for decades are not death to politicians. Who knew?

Corbyn and Trump, in particular, have been vilified and ridiculed by the Press, yet both are winning their respective elections.  Ten years ago, such vilification worked. A candidate could propose those policies showing well in the polls, yet still lose the primaries.

Today, this doesn’t work, because people have had it; they know that just because a politician is favored by the press does not mean that politician will help them, and, in fact, will most likely make their lives worse. They know this because the politicians to whom the press and the establishment have granted their approval, for over 40 years, have (with only a few hiccups) have made their lives worse.

Meanwhile, if trend lines continue, Sanders will take the Democratic nomination (though, of course, trend lines may not continue).

This is a realignment moment: People are no longer willing to put up with politics (and economics) as usual. All three men, if they win, will have mandates. They have been running honestly on what the press and establishment consider “radical” policies (the population does not agree, and never has. Americans, in particular, said they were right wing and consistently polled as wanting rich people taxed, along with various other populist policies).

Expect the vilification to continue, and if Sanders continues to make ground, expect the press to turn from largely ignoring him, to attacking him.

Looks like Brits and Americans may finally, after about 30 years, have a chance to vote again for something other than Tweedledee or Tweedledum.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Clinton Looks Like Toast to Me

By

On August 19, 2015

19 Comments

These revelations keep coming out, keep looking bad, and keep being handled worse.

I don’t think she can win the nomination. If she does, the Republican nominee had better be very, very weak.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 24 of 31

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén