Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 18 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 11/8/20

Everything Will Fundamentally Change

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   1 comment
Become a Premium Member Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Author 9
Follow Me on Twitter     Message David Swanson
Become a Fan
  (140 fans)

In June 2019, Joe Biden promised wealthy so-called donors that nothing would fundamentally change. At this moment hundreds of millions of people from those shooting off fireworks to those ranting as though they will soon shoot up public places in their MAGA hats seem convinced that everything will fundamentally change. Biden was wrong. Everybody else is right. Either everything will change for the better or one or both of the twin dangers of environmental and nuclear apocalypse will change everything for the worse.

What should someone who cares about ending war think? How can we get from the euphoria of electing a warmonger to mobilizing people to end war? How should we talk with the people who are celebrating? And how with the people who are outraged?

With those who are celebrating, I see no reason to oppose their joy and happiness. I happen to love joy and happiness, as long as people can work hard while celebrating. The trick is that working hard implies that a holy and infallible emperor has not been enthroned, that something more is needed. The trouble is that lesser evilists upon selecting a lesser evil candidate often adopt the position that their candidate is actually great and glorious, that in fact it's part of their duty to learn only good bits of information about their chosen one. One thing we could try is reminding people of the wisdom of their lesser evil election choice in a manner that restores to their consciousness exactly how evil was that lesser evil choice, or even better exactly how evil is the society that only allows us such choices.

It may help to tamp down the offensiveness of our truth-telling about Biden to speak of representative government, of the goal if not often the reality of elected officials moving their positions in response to public demand. It's our job to move Biden not because he is Biden but because he is president-elect. It would have been our job to move Bernie too.

Before we can talk about any of that, we have to be granted standing, we have to qualify to speak. That requires that we explain to people at some length our awareness of how evil Trump is and how delighted we will be to be rid of him. One reason for this is the common perception that there are two types of being in the universe, Biden backers and Trump backers. Uttering a discouraging word about Biden will instantly transform you into a maskless, mouth-breathing, minion of the Moronic One, unless you've prefaced it with numerous basic facts about Trump and your feelings about him. Another reason is that corporate media has sometimes painted Trump as a peacemaker, and peace as a threat to all that is good including, rather strangely, to peace. This logic has made enemies of Trump into fans of NATO, the CIA, foreign bases, and a cold war with Russia, so we have extra motivation to unravel it.

If your record is anything like mine, you should be able to succeed in gaining standing. I worked for Trump's impeachment for numerous clear-cut offenses since before his inauguration. I'm now pushing to see him prosecuted for those political offenses that have also been criminal, which appear to include incitement of violence, violation of immigration laws, election fraud, tax fraud, obstruction of justice, refusal to comply with subpoenas, proliferation of nuclear technology, illegal departure from the INF treaty, and of course various wars, coups, and murders by missile. Trump spent four years creating (along with Congress) record military spending, record drone killings, escalation of numerous wars, major base construction, major nuclear weapons construction (and threats to use them), unprecedented shredding of disarmament treaties, heightened hostility with Russia, more weapons in Europe, more weapons on Russia's border, larger war rehearsals in Europe than seen in decades, record weapons dealing around the globe, greater military spending and investment in NATO by its members, and of course no end to the war on Afghanistan that Trump promised to end 4 years ago, or to any other war.

The media-induced specter of Trump withdrawing all troops from Europe and disbanding NATO and ending the war on Afghanistan was a fantasy we should all have supported if real. Trump the peacemaker and Biden the socialist were the best candidates in the recent election, but they were 95% fictional. Still, the lack of any major new war in the past 4 years is huge, unprecedented, and a trend we desperately need to continue which might be easier if we are aware of it.

So, hip hip hurray, the witch is dead, the prize is won. Why would we now want to stomp on people's joy? Do wars and wildfires and floods and lack of basic resources not stomp on people's joy a hell of a lot more than honest assessments of what needs doing? Can we not apply a little lesser evilism to that choice? Aren't we allowed to speak, having qualified ourselves as anti-MAGA-ites?

But what can we say to our MAGA-hatted brothers and sisters? I think we can stand on our record if it's a fair one. When Trump stopped threatening to nuke North Korea and proposed to speak with its leader, but Democrats freaked out and worked to forbid any U.S. troop ever leaving South Korea, some of us denounced the Democrats for that. Same on troops in Germany. If we can show that we've been for peace regardless of party or politician, and for peaceful actions regardless of insane rhetoric and motivations, we may get farther. Most importantly, we should remain respectful and open to collaboration, but not imagine that we need to win over 100% of the public. Winning over a majority for peace is not hard at all. Mobilizing a good fraction of that majority to engage in the necessary activism to make it happen that's the trick. Biden Republicans seem to be little more real than unicorns. Trump won more of the Republicans in 2020 than in 2016. And if Biden Republicans existed, they probably wouldn't be leading peace activism.

A basic fact that we need to figure out how to turn to our advantage is that all questions of foreign policy, federal budget, weapons, bases, wars, treaties, and international law are virtually absent from most elections. The country has not just suffered through a bitter years-long disagreement over war and peace, but rather one over the other 40% of the federal discretionary budget that pays for everything else, and more than that over cultural differences that only marginally impact on policy. Like most Democrats running for public office, Biden had a website with lots of issue statements but no foreign policy. He formed several policy task forces, but none on foreign policy. To my knowledge, no candidate in history for president or Congress, with the exception (so I'm told though nobody has produced proof) of Jesse Jackson Sr., has every proposed even an approximate federal budget. So, people didn't vote against or for Trump principally because of his foreign policy. And people certainly didn't vote for or against Biden because of his.

Beyond Biden's absent foreign policy there's his record. He was the most important Congressional backer of the war on Iraq. The Democrats controlled the Senate. He controlled the hearings. He pushed every lie. He defended those lies long afterwards. He now lies about all that. He's been an advocate for war for decades. The weapons dealers put more money into him than into Trump, and now publicly proclaim they have nothing to worry about. Based on past behavior and recent statements, we can expect Biden, if left to his own devices, to reclaim the military spending record from Trump or come close to it, to end no wars, to close no bases, to continue to increase the use of murderous drones, to continue to increase the use of secret agencies and special forces, and to continue the increased sales of weapons to horrible governments all over the world.

Some of these things require Congress. Some of them it would only take one chamber of Congress to prevent. If the House alone refused to pass a military budget that wasn't reduced by 50 or 10 or 1 percent, then such a budget wouldn't be passed.

Importantly, when two candidates for an office are both pretty bad, they aren't actually identical in every way. Where Biden has said anything positive, even if he's tried to hedge on it, we need to hold him at his word. This means that we need to do the following:

We need to demand that Biden come through on restoring better relations with Cuba and move beyond that to ending the brutal blockade of that island.

We need to demand that Biden come through on ending U.S. participation in the war on Yemen something already passed by Congress but vetoed by Trump. We need to build on that to a repeal of the AUMF, a restoration of the power of war to Congress, and beyond that the effective incorporation into U.S. politics of the criminality of war which denies the power of war to anybody, including Congress.

This will mean dropping all vindictive measures against officials of the International Criminal Court, supporting the ICC's investigation of the war on Afghanistan, and encouraging that court to end its practice of prosecuting only Africans.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

 

Rate It | View Ratings

David Swanson Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Can You Hold These 12 Guns? Don't Shoot Any Palestinians. Wink. Wink.

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: