Though deploring the situation, Gideon Rachman writes in the Financial Times (extract):
The race to be the next Democratic nominee for the US presidency has begun. Most of the energy in the party seems to be on its “progressive” wing, exemplified by Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
These are politicians who attack the rich and privileged in a way that used to be taboo in mainstream US politics.
The populism of the left has an important Latin American branch. The election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador as president of Mexico in 2018 was greeted enthusiastically by the far-left all over the world. Mr Corbyn, once an enthusiastic fan of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, is an old friend of Mr López Obrador and was a guest of honour at his inauguration.
In Britain, the post-Brexit blues could easily present Jeremy Corbyn with the chance to become prime minister.
A Corbyn victory in Britain would inspire left-populists around the world, much as Brexit persuaded rightwing populists (including the Trump campaign) that history was moving in their direction.
*Rachman is a writer I usually avoid, finding his views on many subjects distasteful. However his work is widely praised. The only quotable clue to my aversion is in this review:
“His first book, Zero-Sum World was published in 2010 in the UK. It was published under the title Zero-Sum Future in the US and translated into seven languages, including Chinese, German and Korean. The book argued that the thirty years from 1978–2008 had been shaped by a shared embrace of globalisation by the world’s major powers that had created a “win-win world”, leading to greater peace and prosperity”.
‘For the many, not the few’: American socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, unseats the chair of the Democratic Caucus
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), was elected in a New York primary, becoming the Democratic Party’s candidate for Congress and unseating Joseph Crowley, chair of the Democratic Caucus in the House.
Shelly Asquith describes this as “an election result that sent shock waves through the US political system . . . “
She adds that Crowley’s campaign outspent Ocasio’s 18-1, with donations from corporations including Google, Facebook, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America.
Max Crema, a Labour Party member, commented: “Most people in his extremely diverse district have no idea who he [Crowley] is — he doesn’t even live there. He’s just like the rest of the party’s elites … Democratic voters are sick of being taken for granted.”
Running on a platform of free healthcare and university education for all and the abolition of the immigration enforcement department, Ocasio refused corporate funding, instead relying on small donations and a community organising operation.
She will now stand for Congress in Queens and the Bronx, a district that is considered safe for the Democrats. Her win against Crowley will have given fresh hope to Bernie Sanders supporters who hope that he will stand in 2020.
Shelly is reminded of Jeremy Corbyn’s first leadership election: “The role of getting students and young people involved couldn’t have been easier: the policies were enough. “The campaign’s energy was wild! Driven almost entirely by young people, the campaign brought together seasoned activists, many of them DSA members, with people newly energised by Alexandria’s passionate championing of progressive ideals: universal healthcare, abolishing ICE and taxing the rich.”
In Ocasio’s viral campaign video she used the slogan “for the many”. Max Crema confirmed that the campaign did look to the Labour Party:
“Jeremy Corbyn’s repeated victories as Labour leader have been an inspiration to the American left. As much of our country descends into xenophobia and racism, his bold vision for the future has been taken up as a rallying cry.”
Elsewhere in New York, another socialist candidate is vying to unseat another sitting Democrat. Cynthia Nixon is standing for Governor on a similar platform to Ocasio. Labour’s manifesto slogan ‘For the many, not the few’ has been used in her campaign -see her website.
Shelly continues: “What can we learn from this? Young, working-class, migrant communities in particular are leading a revitalisation of socialism in America, especially in the big cities. Like the Labour Party, the Democratic Party is changing. Proximity to the establishment and big money won’t wash, and people are calling out for candidates that cannot be accused of ‘you’re all the same’ “.
As a visit from Donald Trump on July 13th looms, she wonders if the next time a US President visits the UK it would be Bernie Sanders (or a Sanders-ite) visiting Corbyn at Number 10.
And ends: “What a very special relationship that would be”.
In the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, Senator Bernie Sanders gained 60% of the vote, compared with Hillary Clinton’s 38%. As noted earlier on this site, Sanders has a Corbyn-like appeal for younger voters and is attracting far larger audiences than expected.
The Times reports that, in a speech to his supporters after the contest, Mr Sanders said the result marked a new era, adding: “What the people here have said is that given the enormous crises facing our country, it is just too late for the same old, same old establishment politics and establishment economics”.
“A message that will echo from Wall to Street to Washington”
Sanders’ message that that the government of our great country belongs to all of the people and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors and their Super PACs [political action committees] and that the economy is rigged in favour of a “billionaire class” struck a chord among New Hampshire voters who did not trust Mrs Clinton and her ties to Wall Street, reference being made to the “1%”.
According to exit polls, income inequality and jobs – two central themes of the Sanders campaign – were the top issues for Democrat voters. More than half said they were dissatisfied with the current state of politics.
They cared more about a candidate’s trustworthiness than about experience or electability, a ranking of priorities that favoured the Vermont senator.
Bernie Sanders has assembled an online fundraising operation and ‘electrified’ the youth vote with promises of a “political revolution” that would bring Scandinavian-type policies to the US.
In Canada, Britain, Greece, Italy and Spain also, ‘a sense of revulsion at the political elite’ is leading the popular vote for those seen as trustworthy candidates, who care for the 99%.
Will Corbyn, Trudeau and Sanders eventually combine to confound tyranny and usher in a New World Order?
Jeremy Corbyn’s support for peacemaking is on record. Justin Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister designate, has confirmed he will withdraw Canadian fighter jets from the air strikes against Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria ( Watershed)
Will the humane Bernie Sanders continue President Obama’s appalling drone strikes? When asked, Sanders answered, “Yes and no,” pointing out that killing civilians is counter-productive. Drones are “one tool in the arsenal,” he said, that have at times “clearly backfired on us.”
Will there be a fruitful interaction on this and on their humane and constructive economic policies between the British prime ministerial candidate, the Canadian PM designate and US presidential candidate Sanders?
Remarkably, Sanders is said to be “running right alongside [Clinton] in a statistical dead heat for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination” in the New Hampshire primaries, according to the New York Times, citing a CNN/WMUR poll.
He has a Corbyn-like appeal for younger voters and when Clinton and Sanders made public appearances within days of each other in Des Moines, Iowa, Sanders drew the larger crowds, although it was Clinton’s first visit of the year.
By September 2015, polls had Sanders leading Clinton in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and in one poll he had climbed to within 10 percentage points of her nationally.
Like Corbyn, he is attracting far larger audiences than expected. In the key state of New Hampshire, Mr Sanders now enjoys a 22% lead over Hillary Clinton according to a poll carried out last week by CBS and YouGov.
In the interim, benign politicians and media analysts speak out against execution without trial
Last month MP Caroline Lucas and Baroness Jones sought permission for a judicial review of the policy, claiming that “targeted killing” is unlawful and Sir Simon Jenkins once again writes powerfully, denouncing air-strikes as a ‘cruel delusion, a pretence of humanity, immoral and stupid’, citing Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq again and Libya where city civilians as well as armies were bombed.
Patrick Cockburn wryly comments in the Independent that the ability to execute its own citizens has been a mark of tyrannical government from Rome in the days of the Caesars to Moscow during the Great Purge in the 1930s. He adds that where evidence for an existential threat is lacking, it can be exaggerated or manufactured, as notoriously happened in 2003 over the alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Stupid and arrogant political leaders in the US and Britain are said by Cockburn to use drone warfare because it shows them as apparently effective against evil-doers – and avoids the public backlash caused by soldiers coming back in coffins.
They stoutly deny the all too visible evidence that drone warfare does not wipe out resistance but inflames and recruits angry young terrorists – or resistance fighters.
In September 2011, in Yemen, propaganda cited the drone killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was one of the leaders of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) as a high point in its counter-terrorist campaign, but four years later Cockburn points out, AQAP has become stronger than it has ever been, spreading through Yemen and capturing a port city.
Meanwhile mainstream media plays its leaders’ game, with mock horror at Russian bombings in Syria, with a drone video shot over the district of Jobar showing remnants of bombed-out residential buildings, most of them with gaping holes and others with their top floors collapsed. One slide:
A reader sends a link to an article in which the US defence secretary has warned that Moscow will soon start paying the price for its escalating military intervention in Syria, but still claims the moral high ground for the Anglo-Saxon ‘wars of intervention’.
News of Russian military action is hyped while, as our reader comments, the US minimises its own military attack on the Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) emergency trauma hospital in Afghanistan. The MSF hospital in Kunduz was repeatedly bombed by coalition forces, even though they had been given the hospital’s co-ordinates. An enquiry by International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC) has been activated.
Jenkins reminds us that in each of the wars of intervention – against Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq again and Libya – cities as well as armies have been bombed, overtly to terrorise regimes into surrender.
But the killing of Pashtun militants has done nothing to halt the Taliban’s path back to power in Afghanistan. It has merely replaced possibly moderate elders with tribal hot-heads. Obama’s first drone attack in Yemen killed one al-Qaida suspect, 14 women and 21 children. In a six-year period to 2011 an estimated 3,000 innocents were killed in Pakistan alone, including 176 children.
In the days of conventional war, when international law was still observed to some extent, Jenkins points out that such ‘casual slaughter’ would have had an infantry unit court-martialled and jailed.
We ask again: will Corbyn, Trudeau and Sanders usher in a New World Order?