Maybe Branding U.S. Wars D or R Wasn't Such A Good Idea

There is considerable anti-war sentiment among voters worldwide -- which explains why candidates run on peace promises (Obama, Zelensky, Trump). There is also considerable pro-war sentiment among corporations who build weapons of mass destruction, and the think-tanks they fund to support them.

This push-pull has nudged warmakers into branding wars as "D for Democrat" or "R for Republican" in order to whip up support and manage dissent. Thus Democrats support President Biden's proxy war on Russia via Ukraine while Republicans and third parties (Greens, Libertarians, Communists) don't.

But based on the congressional circus this week, maybe that is not such a good strategy?

Those of us opposed to ALL wars our government wages have experienced the partisan split in who will stand with us. When a Republican is in the White House, Democrats come out in droves. Then when an Obama or a Biden is elected, they go home.

Original collage by James Fangboner (left image), modified by me

Then, the parties wage information wars to support their team. These have ramped up considerably to insist that Putin = Hitler (just silly), that there are no Nazis in Ukraine (maybe they all went to Canada?), and that funding Ukraine's government is a higher priority than funding our own. Even though as far back as July a CNN poll found a majority in the U.S. opposed sending any more money to Ukraine.

In order to avert a federal government shutdown over what to fund, we heard from Democrats that it was the bad Republicans' fault. From The Guardian: 

The US president said on Sunday he was “sick and tired” of the political brinkmanship, and that US support for Ukraine could not be interrupted “under any circumstances”.  

Even though Democrats never move left and always move right -- or maybe because of that? -- the Punch and Judy show where the two corporate parties bash each other constantly is having a long run.

Then we heard that the bad Republicans would only vote for averting a shutdown if it stripped out "aid" to Ukraine (currently at $180 billion and counting). And it worked! Worked, that is, after a fire drill shut Congress down when Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman pulled a fire alarm and delayed the vote a bit.

He swears this was an honest mistake. But I suspect the delay was so that some more back room deals on terms of the funding could be hammered out.

Received wisdom has it that Democrats want WW3 with Russia while Republicans want WW3 with China. But Greens like me see the corporate parties supporting all the wars and I think they're all nuts.

 I can see where the U.S. once believed it could beat Russia as it used the NATO alliance and CIA color revolutions to foment trouble like civil war for Ukraine. Looking at the situation today, it's clear that few aside from delusional thinkers allied with the Biden administration believes this is still the case. Russia has objectively kicked Ukraine/NATO's butt while the response in the West is best epitomized by the Canadian Parliament's standing ovation for a literal Nazi "who fought the Russians in WW2."

"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognize Yaroslav Hunka, who fought with the First Ukrainian Division in World War II, in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Sept. 22, 2023." | Patrick Doyle/The Canadian Press

(If you're unclear on WW2's major players and alliances, the late Howard Zinn's overview can be found here.)

Next up, preparations are already well underway for using Taiwan to create a situation where China feels it must respond to safeguard its own borders and sovereignty. What would lead to the delusion that AUKUS or NATO or U.S.-Japan-South Korea could defeat China in a hot war? Hot warriors falsely claim China is authoritarian, has lost the support of its people, and committed genocide against the Uyghurs.

Word to the U.S.: your government is increasingly authoritarian, has lost the confidence of its people, and has committed genocide in so many places it's hard to list them all. Maybe just note the ongoing attempted genocide of the indigenous people of North America and leave it at that.

Divide & Conquer, Part 4: VBNW v. MAGA

This installment in my series examining how our corporate overlords stoke the flames of civil war in the hopes of avoiding a revolution will focus on the two corporate parties.

After a divisive speech in Philadelphia with the inflammatory title "Remarks by President Biden on the Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation," I was inspired to do some compare and contrast on this topic. Rather than a Venn diagram which offers a very small space for similarities, I used a "top hat" graphic organizer from my teaching days. Not exhaustive by any means, but here's what I came up with:

Why such divisive, inflammatory rhetoric on the eve of midterm elections? Because, with the scene below repeated all over the planet, the ruling class in the U.S. fear they are next.

One of the huge differences we were supposed to believe distinguished red from blue was a scientific approach to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. The demogogue with bad hair that leads the MAGA cult disinguished himself in the White House spouting unscientific nonsense about a disease the public knew almost nothing about at that point. Oddly, his administration still delivered more "covid relief" at least in economic terms than has Biden's. 

Once the current administration came to power, we got plenty of vaccines and boosters that didn't actually keep us from getting infected but no mitigation effects like N95 masks for all to protect the vulnerable, nor high quality air filtration in public spaces like classrooms. Science became "the science" which is science in the service of commerce -- not the same thing. And economic relief from the effects of layoffs, illness, lack of free public school daycare? Fuggidaboudit.

I think history will show that, if not for the pandemic, 45 might very well have been a two term president. But never mind about the current ~400 deaths per day. It's pretty clear that our rulers of either color have lost interest in protecting us from premature death. Neither party supports the universal health care fundamental to success in adressing public health elsewhere.

But what about January 6?

It's clear that the outgoing president incited his followers to stage a riot at Congress on the day the election results were to be certified. The legal fallout from that is pretty intense for said followers who are receiving hefty jail sentences for their participation. The fallout for 45 remains to be seen. It would, however, be unprecedented for him alone among presidents to be held to account for any of his crimes, including a new possibility, that of mishandling classified documents.

The war crimes of each successive president are never called to account, no matter whether the man in the White House has a D or an R after his name.

The other science topic that was once supposed to be -- and is still heavily sold as -- a HUGE difference between blue and red was protecting access to reproductive health care, including abortion.

I say supposed because Democrats for decades did nothing to codify Roe v. Wade into law. They were able to fearmonger and fundraise so successfully off the prospect of it being overturned that they didn't want to give it up.

The fact that the Supreme Court is now a swamp of sex offenders and religious zealots was the fundamental reason used to promote the need to Vote Blue No Matter Who. But this argument doesn't hold up. The Obama administration failed to insist on hearings for their 11th hour nominee Merrick Garland, and failed to block the 11th hour confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett. For that matter, the Democratic Party failed to convince elderly, ailing Ruth Bader Ginsberg to step down in time for Obama to replace her.

Once upon a time, we were able to distinguish the two parties by their differing aesthetics. When the GOP was in the White House, we were embarrassed on the international stage. 45 pandering to his base had to stoop pretty low, and George W. Bush was the most inarticulate president since the advent of television.

Those days are gone. Or maybe the White House just kept on the same art director?

I'll end with a few of the zillions of tweets commenting on Biden's speech.

Onward, to Civil War 2.0.