empire watch, latest, USA

See what the two main American political parties have become

David Lindsay

Image Source here

See what the two main American political parties have become. On any one or more of torture, Guantánamo Bay, mass surveillance, workers’ rights, consumer protection, environmental responsibility, treaties with Native Americans, healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions (that is, people like me), the President’s supposed immunity from indictment, and the President’s supposed power to pardon himself, Brett Kavanaugh could easily have been blocked by enough Republicans and all Democrats, plus Bernie Sanders. But instead, the useless Democratic Party made it about a #MeToo and #IBelieveHer story that it was impossible to prove.

The party of Glass and Steagall repealed Glass-Steagall. The party that put a man on the Moon has become the party that puts a man in the ladies’ room. The eventual party of Civil Rights has regressed to being the party of the lynch mob. I am not going to do the line about the Democratic Party’s having gone “from a chicken in every pot, to a chicken on pot,” because the truth is even worse. Those who had cut their political teeth against the leaders of the own party over Vietnam went on to rampage bare-fanged across the earth in the Clinton years, clearing the ground for those who had had no principled objection to that war, but who had merely dodged the draft because they could afford to, namely George W Bush and Donald Trump.

Over on that side of the aisle, Nikki Haley is now a “moderate”. So much for Eisenhower’s ending of the Korean War, his even-handed approach to Israel and the Palestinians, his nonintervention in Indochina, his denunciation of the military-industrial complex, and his still-inspiring advocacy of nuclear power as “atoms for peace” 10 years after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings: civil nuclear power as the ultimate beating of swords in ploughshares. In 1960, Kennedy branded Eisenhower and Nixon soft on the Soviets.

But then, in 1954, Eisenhower had written to his brother, Edgar N Eisenhower, that:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H L Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

So much for Nixon’s suspension of the draft, his détente with China and with the USSR, and the ending of the Vietnam War by him and by Ford, who went on to sign the Helsinki Accords. So much for Nixon’s openness to the Universal Basic Income even then, and for his declaration that “I am now a Keynesian in economics,” or, as Milton Friedman bitterly put it, “We are all Keynesians now.” So much for Nixon’s belief in wage and price control as surely as in the Clean Air Act and in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, as surely as in the War on Cancer and in the War on Drugs, as surely as in Title IX and in the desegregation of schools in the Deep South.

So much for Nixon’s insistence that the United States should launch no war over the Soviet Union’s treatment of its Zionist dissidents, who have turned out to have been just as unpleasant in their own way as were many other categories of those who happened to dissent from the Soviet regime, and who now constitute a significant obstacle to peace in the Middle East, where they are busily engaged in denaturalising both the Israeli Arabs and the Haredi Jews.

So much for the Nixon and Ford Administrations’ stark contrast to the pioneering monetarism and to the Cold War sabre-rattling of the Carter Administration, which was particularly bad for emphasising Soviet human rights abuses while ignoring Chinese and Romanian ones. Carter, who was not above electorally opportunistic race-baiting, even happily allowed the Chinese-backed Pol Pot to retain control of the Cambodian seat at the UN after Phnom Penh had fallen to the rival forces backed by Vietnam and therefore by the Soviet Union. But Carter, for all his unsung prophetic calls against materialism in general and oil dependence in particular, had had the nerve to brand Ford as soft on Communism for his entirely factual statement that Yugoslavia, Romania and Poland were “not dominated” by the Soviet Union.

So much for Reagan’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983, and for his initiation of nuclear arms reduction in Europe, despite the heavy Trotskyist influence over his foreign policy. So much for the condemnation of the Israeli bombing of Iraq in 1981 by Reagan and by almost all members of both Houses of Congress, including many of the most hardline Evangelical conservatives, Cold War hawks or both ever to sit on Capitol Hill. So much for James Baker’s call to “lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel” in order to “forswear annexation, stop settlement activity,” and for Baker’s negotiation of the voluntary disposal of all nuclear weapons by Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. So much for the Republican opposition to the global trigger-happiness of the Clinton Administration. And so much for George W Bush’s declaration that “Russia is no longer our enemy”, together with his removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia after 11th September 2001.


  1. Billie says

    Re the ‘war on cancer’ and the ‘war on drugs’…

    The official mainstream “wars” on this or that have thus been “wars” on the unsuspecting public: to keep them misinformed and misguided.

    If the public were to scrutinize what the medical industry and its government pawns are telling them about the ‘war on cancer’ instead of blindly believing what they’re saying, they’d find that the cancer industry and the cancer charities have been dismissing, ignoring, and obfuscating the true causes of cancer while mostly putting the blame for cancer on the individual, denying or dismissing the serious harms from orthodox cancer treatments, and resorting to deceptive cancer statistics to “educate” (think: mislead) the public that their way of treatment is actually successful (read this well referenced scholarly article’s afterword on the war on cancer: do a search engine query for “A Mammogram Letter The British Medical Journal Censored” or visit https://www.supplements-and-health.com/mammogram.html ) and scroll down to the afterword that addresses the fraudulent ‘war on cancer’).

    The “war” on anything is almost always one big fraud, whether it is actual military war, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, or the war on cancer, because huge corporate interests are the leading motive for these “wars” instead of their officially advocated missions.

    The orthodox cancer establishment has been saying a cure for cancer “is just around the corner” and “we’re winning the war on cancer” for decades. It’s all hype and lies (read Dr. Guy Faguet’s ‘War on cancer,” Dr. Sam Epstein’s work, or Clifton Leaf’s book on this bogus ‘war’).

    Since the war on cancer began orthodox medicine hasn’t progressed in their basic highly profitable therapies: it still uses only highly toxic, deadly things like radiation, chemo, surgery, and drugs that have killed millions of people instead of the disease.

    As long as the official “war on cancer” is a HUGE BUSINESS based on expensive TREATMENTS/INTERVENTIONS of a disease instead of its PREVENTION, logically, they will never find a cure for cancer. The upcoming moonshot-war on cancer inventions, too, will include industry-profitable gene therapies of cancer treatment that are right in line with the erroneous working model of mechanistic reductionism of allopathic medicine. The lucrative game of the medical business is to endlessly “look for” a cure but not “find” a cure. Practically all resources in the phony ‘war on cancer’ are poured into treating cancer but almost none in the prevention of the disease. It’s proof positive that big money and a total lack of ethics rule the official medical establishment.

    At the same time, this same orthodox cancer cartel has been suppressing and squashing a number of very effective and beneficial alternative cancer approaches. You probably guessed why: effective, safe, inexpensive cancer therapies are cutting into the astronomical profits of the medical mafia’s lucrative treatments. That longstanding decadent activity is part of the fraud of the war on cancer.

    What the medical establishment “informs” the public about is about as truthful as what the political establishment keeps telling them. Not to forget, the corporate media (the mainstream fake news media) is a willing tool to spread these distortions, lies, and the scam of the war on cancer.

    Does anyone really think it’s a coincidence that double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling called the ‘war on cancer’ a fraud? If anyone looks closer they’ll come to the same conclusion. But…politics and self-serving interests of the conventional medical cartel, and their allied corporate media, keep the real truth far away from the public at large. Or people’s own denial of the real truth.

    • harry stotle says

      That’s because there is no meaningful difference – in fact politicians who attain positions of power do so only insofar as they are willing to accept the universal rubicron dictating most of our economic and social affairs, neoliberalism.

      Tony Blair and his acolytes are a grostesque example of this principle, disgracefully hi-jacking a once socialist party in order to usher in a new age of war and sinister international partnerships.

      Back then Britain was still reeling from 3 successive terms of Thatcherism so may not have fully grasped that Tony was in the vanguard of a new generation of politicians – those willing to cede power to the banking and corporate world while in thrall to an ersatz form of communication that rapidly became estranged from truth or reality.
      At the same time politicians gave tacit to approval for our electronic footprint to be commandeered by profiteers, or made easily available to intrusive security agencies making a mockery of the idea that citizens can in any way escape perpetual forms of surveillance.

      Later day incarnations in the US like the sainted Obama and Killary merely confirmed our worst suspicions that the Overton window had moved to the far right, while the MSM fulfilled its customary role as instrument of the elite ruthlessly subverting opposition or dissenting voices.

      Today, for example, woe betide anyone who is skeptical about MSM narratives concerning Russia, Syria, or the flow of trillions into off-shore accounts via the city of London while to this very day the Guardian’s memory-hole beckons should anyone dispute Bush’s account of 9/11.

  2. Interesting omission: the fact that the living saint Jimmy Carter began the policy of deliberately arming, funding and training jihadi headchopper terrorists in July 1979 against the socialist and secular government of Afghanistan, leading to the Soviet intervention in December, the rise of al Qaeda, the destruction of Iraq and Syria, the spread of ISIS and, finally, the confrontation with Russia in Syria which could still trigger WWIII. It’s such a gigantic omission that I can only imagine it was deliberate.

  3. milosevic says

    So much for Reagan’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983, and for his initiation of nuclear arms reduction in Europe, despite the heavy Trotskyist influence over his foreign policy.

    The disinfo is strong with this one.

    Imperialists do not fight for political principles but for markets, colonies, raw materials, for hegemony over the world and its wealth.

    The victory of any one of the imperialist camps would mean the definite enslavement of all humanity, the clamping of double chains on present-day colonies, and all weak and backward peoples, among them the peoples of Latin America. The victory of any one of the imperialist camps would spell slavery, wretchedness, misery, the decline of human culture.

    What is the way out, you ask? Personally, I do not doubt for a moment that a new war will provoke an international revolution against the rule of the rapacious capitalist cliques over humanity. In wartime all differences between imperialist “democracy” and fascism will disappear. In all countries a merciless military dictatorship will reign. The German workers and peasants will perish just like the French and English. The modern means of destruction are so monstrous that humanity will probably not be able to endure war even a few months. Despair, indignation, hatred will push the masses of all warring countries into an uprising with weapons in hand. Victory of the world proletariat will put an end to war and will also solve the Spanish problem as well as all the current problems of Europe and other parts of the world.

    Those working class “leaders” who want to chain the proletariat to the war chariot of imperialism, covered by the mask of “democracy,” are now the worst enemies and the direct traitors of the toilers. We must teach the workers to hate and despise the agents of imperialism, since they poison the consciousness of the toilers; we must explain to the workers that fascism is only one of the forms of imperialism, that we must fight not against the external symptoms of the disease but against its organic causes, that is, against capitalism.

    Leon Trotsky — Anti-Imperialist Struggle Is Key to Liberation

  4. Reagan’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983, and for his initiation of nuclear arms reduction in Europe, despite the heavy Trotskyist influence over his foreign policy

    Yep, those American Trots sure are a force to be reckoned with. The author is either woefully ignorant of the fact that by misusing political terminology he is making a fool of himself or he is partaking in historical revisionism. Whatever the case, OffG does itself no favours by posting confused semi-incoherent rants.

    • milosevic says

      Yes, but haven’t you been dead for 68 years, already?

  5. Robbobbobin says

    Politics is to commerce as armies are war. Expressed as war, the ultimate aim of a social system is unconditional victory. Expressed within capitalism, the ultimate aim of commerce is absolute monopoly. So why is anyone, either in the USA itself or anywhere else in the USA’s increasingly digitally-enforced hegemony, surprised that all roads lead to the Amazon? Fill in your deceasingly relevant objections below or click an icon to die out.


    • At min.52:06 Assange says something very interesting.What do you think about this topic?

      • Robbobbobin says

        I think that his responses from the question at 44:00 onwards are, in illuminating the monumental triviality that the average person–whether layman or professional, exploiter or exploited, predator or prey, ruler or ruled, philosopher or sophist; etc–brings to bear on the problems of the denoument of the Enlightenment, particularly those arising from the emergence of modern science and technology and the consequences of the death of the deity, are pretty much why I added the link.

      • I was referring to his reference to ‘smart evil dust’ This isn’t the place to discuss that. It is a whole topic in itself. The artificial intelligence and ‘singularity’ world are very much into the future use of intelligent nano particles that Assange spoke of. It is certainly something we will all be dealing with down the road. There is currently a lot of misinformation around it. The pentagon is clever.

        • Robbobbobin says

          “I was referring to his reference to ‘smart evil dust’”

          Along with broader considerations within which even just the possibility of ‘smart, evil dust’ can exist, so was I. if you prefer a narrower view, then ‘smart, evil dust’ is not only “something we will all be dealing with down the road”, it is already with us. You can buy it in various prototypical forms in the right here and the right now. Visa, Mastercard and PayPal are all accepted. However, not to assess it in its broader contexts is simply another land grab in Patagonia.

          • I agree. Of course, everything has broader context and considerations. This is a given. We have two political parties which we are currently dealing with, we know this, yet they are also ‘something we will all be dealing with down the road’. This assessment of the obvious made now, will help us determine what might be down the road for us so we can prepare for it.
            I do prefer beginning with the ‘narrower view’ as a starting point as it is a dependable way to solicit another’s broader conclusions.
            My querying as to what one ‘thinks about a [topic],’ indicates firstly, an acknowledgement that there is a contextual discussion already in play on that specific subject, in this case….’smart dust.’[the topic] There are those who believe that the employment of this dust is good. There are those who believe it is bad. Within each of these perspectives there is the individual’s subjective perception of particular information which constitutes their conclusion of its relevance within a broader context.
            My question was about your bigger picture. I can understand if you would rather not say.

  6. “emphasising Soviet human rights abuses while ignoring Chinese and Romanian ones”.

    Remind me again, what were the Chinese human rights abuses? I’m pretty familiar with post-war Chinese history and I’ve been unable to find any human rights abuses like those I see in the US today.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      China raised more people out of poverty than the rest of the world combined. For the ruling psychopaths of the Western elites, who ground the Third World into the dirt, then turned on their own lower ranks, such an effort is anathema, and against the ‘human rights’ of those who really matter-the rich parasites.

  7. So much for sanity. So much for trying to make sense of an insane asylum from within an insane asylum. As long as it is profitable to kill people, the media which voices the narrative of world events will do the bidding of killers. Of course, a balance must always be struck, as killing must remain frowned upon in order to stir the masses for their support in killing killers. “They are killing their own people, Let’s kill them”. The population in America is indifferent and despondent. We are conditioned to a reality show consciousness in which nothing is real. Killing is entertainment. Good thing the Pentagon is almost ready with a new drug to make soldiers actually enjoy killing. Who needs all the suicides from PTSD anyway? This isn’t cost effective. Drugs worked well with ISIS. All the opiates they were given made for great video of children halved and quartered after the gang rape. It is all a show. We are an audience. It is more like we are the pawns on a multi leveled board game played by beings who view us as irrelevant pieces in whatever might be the goals of their game. Like monopoly but the houses and hotels are full of people being crushed as they are tossed back in the box after we land on Park Place and then have to sell our pieces back to the bank. Trying to understand how we are being moved around in this game seems to be part of a game on another level. Our forced hypocrisy keeps us malleable, compliant and willing players. It is as if even the elites are puppets in this charade. We can’t forget that the example given us by the highest authority was drowning all the people and animals on the planet for being bad. Nice move.
    Gee… the men in white coats are gathering near the door and the elevator music has been softened. Must be lunch time.

  8. harry stotle says

    “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

  9. rtj1211 says

    The only lesson of US history is that no treaty is worth the parchment or paper it is signed on…..

    • Bal S says

      Nothing will illuminate this better than the forthcoming ‘Thanksgiving’ charade about to descend upon the US and even us over here in the Mighty British Empire. Thankfully around the same time we have our very own Poppy Porn Parade. A spectacle that sees some of the most prolific, mass murdering war mongers of the British elite from 1990- onwards, standing around the Cenotaph, quoting World War 1 epitaphs using terminolgy like ‘never again’ and ‘lest we forget’.

      The blood truly never dries with these sociopaths.

  10. Interpretation says

    “Senators call on Trump to impose sanctions over journalist killing”

    This sounds more like a cry for: ‘Bigger Cheques’.

    Bluntly, US senators, the enablers of wars and destruction, are now bold enough to say they will not shut up until they receive larger bribes from the Saudis; usually money channelled by public relations firms.

    • mark says

      There are two political parties in America. There is the Adelson Zionist Republican Party and the Saban Zionist Democratic Party. “American” politics is a competition between two groups of indistinguishable Zionist stooges as to who can offer the most ludicrous, extravagant tribute to the Zionist Apartheid Regime in Israel. The US president is just a trained monkey rattling its tin cup for its AIPAC organ grinder. You can have a half black money (Obongo) or an orange monkey (Trumpenstein), and in the future you can probably have a female monkey, or a gay monkey, or even a trannie monkey. But whatever version is on offer, the trained monkey in question will carry on rattling its AIPAC tin cup just as loudly. A minimum baseline of $3.8 billion a year, $23,000 for every household in Israel. Plus all the F35s, Arrow missiles, Merkava tanks, and nuclear warheads Nitwityahoo demands, all completely free/ gratis/ buckshee, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

      • Interpretation says

        Amazing, how Israel is able to manage extremely effective ‘public relations’ and lobbying operations in every corner of the world.
        They can afford it, because the US is meeting the Israelis’ military needs and guaranteeing the Zionists military superiority in future wars.

Comments are closed.