Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist

Dear Friends,

Notwithstanding the lack of press coverage, Bernie Sanders gave a very important speech yesterday.  Initially, it was to explain what it means to be a democratic socialist, but as a result of the recent terrorist attacks, Senator Sanders expanded it to cover his approach to eliminating ISIS.  If you have the time, you should read it here.

His speech made it very clear that Senator Sanders is a modern version of President Franklin Roosevelt.  The two men have a very similar view of the role of government with respect to providing for the people.  FDR was President in a time of great economic disparity, and he referred to those at the top of the economic ladder who wanted to have it all as "economic royalists"; Bernie Sanders refers to the same type of people as the "billionaire class".  Senator Sanders references President Roosevelt often, including his second Bill of Rights.  The following is an excerpt from President Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union address.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

As Senator Sanders goes on to enumerate what it means to be a democratic socialist, it is easy to see FDR's second Bill of Rights as well as his view of the role of government.  Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist believes

• we must have an economy that works for all not just the few
• healthcare is a right - we need Medicare for all
• education is a right - we need free public college education
• full employment is an obligation of the government if the private sector fails - we need a significant infrastructure building jobs program
• a person working full-time must not live in poverty - we need a $15/hour minimum wage
• wellbeing is a right - we need programs like paid family leave
• a secure and dignified retirement is a right - we need to expand social security
• we need a fair political system not one controlled by the rich 
• we need a tax system where everybody and every corporation pays their fair share

Bernie Sanders made it clear that he agrees with President Roosevelt that freedom requires economic security.  In his 1944 State of the Union Address, FDR said

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.

Bernie Sanders also echoed Martin Luther King, Jr. who said in 1968

This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.

Senator Sanders went on to give a perfect example of what Reverend King meant.

It is a system, for example, which during the 1990s allowed Wall Street to spend $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to get deregulated. Then, ten years later, after the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street led to their collapse, it is a system which provided trillions in government aid to bail them out. Wall Street used their wealth and power to get Congress to do their bidding for deregulation and then, when their greed caused their collapse, they used their wealth and power to get Congress to bail them out. Quite a system!

And, then, to add insult to injury, we were told that not only were the banks too big to fail, the bankers were too big to jail. Kids who get caught possessing marijuana get police records. Wall Street CEOs who help destroy the economy get raises in their salaries. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant by socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else.

Senator Sanders also made the direct connection between our economic security at home and our ability to bring peace in the world.  As did President Roosevelt when he elaborated on his second Bill of Rights.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

When Senator Sanders turned to the question of how to defeat ISIS, he was very clear that the United States must play a very important but supporting role.

But let's be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations - with the strong support of their global partners.

These same sentiments have been echoed by those in the region. Jordan's King Abdallah II said in a speech on Sunday that terrorism is the "greatest threat to our region" and that Muslims must lead the fight against it. He noted that confronting extremism is both a regional and international responsibility, and that it is incumbent on Muslim nations and communities to confront those who seek to hijack their societies and generations with intolerance and violent ideology.

With a strong understanding of history and our past foreign policy mistakes, Senator Sanders is clear that he will provide all the support needed to defeat ISIS, but the Muslim nations and communities must take the lead.  He also calls out some of our so-called allies who have not only not done enough to fight ISIS but who have in many ways provided support to radical clerics.

Equally important, and this is a point that must be made - countries in the region like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE - countries of enormous wealth and resources - have contributed far too little in the fight against ISIS. That must change. King Abdallah is absolutely right when he says that that the Muslim nations must lead the fight against ISIS, and that includes some of the most wealthy and powerful nations in the region, who, up to this point have done far too little.

All of this has got to change. Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them. As we develop a strongly coordinated effort, we need a commitment from these countries that the fight against ISIS takes precedence over the religious and ideological differences that hamper the kind of cooperation that we desperately need.

The bottom line is that ISIS must be destroyed, but it cannot be defeated by the United States alone. A new and effective coalition must be formed with the Muslim nations leading the effort on the ground, while the United States and other major forces provide the support they need.

Senator Bernie Sanders is not an extremist.  All of the great programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were called socialist by their detractors, but they provide the bedrock to provide the economic security that all Americans should enjoy.  There is nothing radical or new about providing free public education or government rebuilding our infrastructure or every person paying his or her fair share of taxes or providing paid family leave or having Medicare for all or a minimum wage of $15 an hour so a full-time worker does not live in poverty or regulating and taxing Wall Street so that the banks are not too big to fail and the CEO's not too big to prosecute or any of the other policies that Bernie Sanders advocates.  All of those policies are well within the second Bill of Rights proposed by FDR and at the time commonly accepted.  In addition, Senator Sanders' plan for defeating ISIS is the only realistic one that I have heard; as it is clear that a US lead ground war in Muslim countries will only lead to more terrorism.

Bernie Sanders is the person we need as President.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Hillary Clinton's Plan to Defeat ISIS

Dear Friends,

After Hillary Clinton's speech yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations about how to defeat ISIS, I googled to see what she had to say.  Among the hits were these two headlines:

From Politicususa (here): "Hillary Clinton Rejects New Middle East Ground War By Opposing Sending US Troops To Syria"

From The Guardian (here): "Hillary Clinton calls for more ground troops as part of hawkish Isis strategy"

Last night Chris Hayes, on his show All in with Chris Hayes also made what I consider to be a contradictory statement about her position.  He stated her position was "... rejecting calls for expanded use of ground troops in the Middle East, Clinton urged a new phase in the fight against ISIS, including more special operations forces..."

It was clear to me that I needed to read the transcript of her speech, if I were to understand what her plan was.  She did in fact say

Like President Obama, I do not believe that we should again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here. If we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that local people and nations have to secure their own communities.

I completely agree with her on this point, and I assume that is the paragraph that lead commentators to say that she was rejecting additional ground troops.

She also said,

To support them [Syrians whom we support who are taking on ISIS], we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight.

This sentence is probably the reason why The Guardian headline said she called for more ground troops and why Chris Hayes said she called for more special operations forces.

Certainly not all ground forces are special operations forces but all special operations forces are in fact ground forces.  My view of what she said is that she rejects large numbers of ground troops but will increase the number of ground troops.  She also argued for more direct involvement of the ground forces that are already authorized to be in the area.

As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes.

There can be no doubt that if our "advisors" are embedded with the Iraqi troops, that they will be much more in harms way, and we will be forced to protect them which will lead to an even greater escalation.  We should remember how we started in Vietnam.

Secretary Clinton's plan is more aggressive than President Obama's plan, particularly with respect to more ground troops, embedding troops and a no-fly zone. While I disagree with those positions, she makes some very good points about the need for the people of the region to overcome their differences and fight ISIS as a common enemy and the need for more and better intelligence.

Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners. And we must get them to carry their share of the burden, with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria.

As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS, and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.

The United States should also work with our Arab partners to get them more invested in the fight against ISIS. At the moment, they’re focused in other areas because of their concerns in the region, especially the threat from Iran. That’s why the Saudis, for example, shifted attention from Syria to Yemen. So we have to work out a common approach.

We should not stop pressing until Turkey, where most foreign fighters cross into Syria, finally locks down its border.

And once and for all, the Saudis, the Qataris and others need to stop their citizens from directly funding extremist organizations as well as the schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path to radicalization.

I particularly applaud her for calling out the Turks, Saudis and Qataris.  It is well past time for leaders in the United States to tell the truth about what some of our so-called allies are doing.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

The Greatest Threat We Face

Dear Friends,

In the second Democratic Presidential debate, Bernie Sanders said that climate change was the biggest threat that we face.  President Obama has made similar statements.  In light of the terrorist attacks in Paris, many politicians particularly those on the right are pushing the narrative that ISIS is the biggest threat and that there is a real threat that ISIS will destroy the world as we know it.  While stoking fear and hatred of others is a constant political strategy for Republicans, it is important to point out that there is absolutely no way that ISIS can destroy the world as we know it and that ISIS, while a threat that must be eliminated, is in no way a major threat to the world as know it.  For more on that point, I commend to you Paul Krugman's Op-ed piece, entitled "Fearing Fear Itself" published in The New York Times (here).

After 9/11 our Congress passed the Patriot Act to take away our freedoms in order to prevent another terrorist attack.  Then through a series of leaks, particularly by Edward Snowden, we learned that our government was exceeding its authority and that there was no proof that all the invasions of our privacy were of any help.  Now after the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, John Brennan is claiming that the disclosures have made it more difficult to track terrorists, so we need to sacrifice more of our privacy rights.  In addition, Republicans are calling for legislation to stop all Syrian refugees from entering the country.

We can pass more and more legislation that goes against our Constitutional rights and our values to pretend to guard against terrorism, but we cannot pass any legislation to help reduce the gun violence that is rampant in this country.  CNN did this analysis recently (here).

Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.
In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380.

The numbers used by CNN include the deaths from the 9/11 attacks.  It should be obvious from this analysis that gun violence is a much greater threat to us than terrorism, yet the Republicans are unwilling to consider any action to reduce gun violence.

The threat from climate change is in the short term immense and in the long term existential.  The World Health Organization estimates that there are 150,000 deaths worldwide annually caused by climate change and estimates that between 2030 and 2050 that number will rise to 250,000 additional deaths annually just from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.  For comparison, the worldwide death toll from terrorism in 2014, the latest data available was just under 33,000 people.  That toll was the highest on record, but it is unclear if it represents a trend.  These incredible numbers are only the direct impact.  They do not reflect the deaths and other impacts of the conflicts that will result from the shortage of natural resources and the movement of displaced populations.

Obviously, terrorism is a problem that must be dealt with, but the threat from climate change is much more serious and if left unchecked will actually destroy the world as we know it.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

It's my white privilege.

Dear Friends,

I have tired to recognize my white privilege in all the ways that it exists, but I keep finding new ways.

I have been trying to figure out why I am so much more touched by the terrorist attacks in Paris than  those in Beirut or in Kenya or in any of the many other places around the world that are not predominately white societies.  I have lived in overwhelmingly white communities all of my life and have felt safe almost all of the time.  I do not feel threatened when I see another white person, but I do from time to time feel unsafe when I see a non-white person who fits the stereotype of someone I "should" fear; a young black male, a group of middle eastern appearing men, etc.

Part of my white privilege is that I have always had a community in which I can feel safe.  I am not constantly stopped or harassed by police, I am not in a minority surrounded by people who are "different" (non-white) from me, and I am a privileged member of the majority community.  The Paris that I see is white.  Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, Kenya, etc. are non-white.  They are all communities where I would be in the minority and in many cases subject to the same harassment and discrimination that a person of color is in Minnesota, or worse.  So I am ashamed to say that the most likely reason that I am more touched by the terrorist attacks in Paris than in Mumbai is that Paris is white, like me, and Mumbai is not.  It is another part of my white privilege that I must acknowledge.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Terrorists and Bigots

Dear Friends,

The terrible terrorist attacks in Paris last week have brought back into the front of our consciousness the fact that terrorism is alive and well in the world.  My heart goes out to all of those who suffer as the result of terrorist acts whether they take place in Paris or Beirut or Charleston.  We need to do all that we can to end terrorism, but to do that we need to understand and admit the facts surrounding terrorism today.

There is a very common misconception that terrorist attacks are most often perpetrated by those claiming to be acting on their Islamic beliefs.  This misconception is reinforced by politicians who are using fear and hatred of "others" for their own selfish political gain.  Here are some facts which clearly counter the common wisdom.

The chart below, courtesy of ThinkProgress (here) is based on information from Europol, the EU's law enforcement agency.

Most of the terrorist attacks in the EU have been by separatist organizations.

The ThinkProgress article goes on to discuss the statistics in the United States.

Religious motivations makes up just a slightly larger portion of terrorist attacks in the U.S.
Islamist militants lag far behind other groups when it comes to carrying out terrorist attacks in the U.S. too. According to FBI data compiled by the Princeton University’s Loon Watch, Islamist extremists were responsible for just 6 percent of terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2005 — falling behind Latino groups, Extreme left-wing groups, and Jewish extremists.

While the coverage by the media in the United States has helped to perpetuate the myth that most terrorist attacks are related to Islam, an article in The New York Times (here) from June 24, 2015 actually does a good job of summarizing the facts.

But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.

Here is the table from New America showing the incidents that is cited by The New York Times.

The tables below show the lethal terrorist incidents in the United States since 9/11.

Deadly Jihadist Attacks
Total number of people killed:
26
Plot name Persons killed2014 Washington and New Jersey Killing Spree 4
2014 Oklahoma Beheading 1
2013 Boston Marathon Bombing 4
2009 Little Rock Shooting 1
2009 Fort Hood Shooting 13
2006 Seattle Jewish Federation Shooting 1
2002 Los Angeles Airport Shooting 2

Deadly Right Wing Attacks
Total number of people killed:
48
Plot name Persons killed
2015 Charleston Church Shooting 9
2014 Tallahassee Police Ambush 1
2014 Las Vegas Police Ambush 3
2014 Kansas Jewish Center Shooting 3
2014 Blooming Grove Police Shooting 1
2012 Tri-State Killing Spree 4
2012 St. John's Parish Police Ambush 2
2012 Sikh Temple Shooting 6
2011 FEAR Militia 3
2010 Carlisle, PA Murder 1
2010 Austin, TX Plane Attack 1
2009 Pittsburgh Police Shootings 3
2009 Holocaust Museum Shooting 1
2009 George Tiller Assassination 1
2009 Ft. Walton, FL Shooting 2
2009 Flores Murders, Pima County, AZ 2
2009 Brockton, MA Murders 2
2008 Knoxville, TN Church Shooting 2
2004 Tulsa OK, Bank Robbery 1

An article on the Huffington Post website (here) entitled "White Supremacists More Dangerous To America Than Foreign Terrorists, Study Says" describes very clearly the misconception itself as well as a view on it based on the history of the United States.  I recommend the article to you.

The politicians and the press do not call terrorist groups that claim to have Christian views, Christian terrorists, but they should if they are going to call terrorist groups that claim to have Islamic views, Islamic terrorists.  Salon, reprinting an article from AlterNet, has a great article entitled "6 modern-day Christian terrorist groups our media conveniently ignores" (here).  Below is the first paragraph of that article.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently released an in-depth report on terrorism in the United States. Covering April 2009 to February 2015, the report (titled “The Age of the Wolf”) found that during that period, “more people have been killed in America by non-Islamic domestic terrorists than jihadists.” The SPLC asserted that “the jihadist threat is a tremendous one,” pointing out that al-Qaeda’s attacks of September 11, 2001 remain the deadliest in U.S. history. But the study also noted that the second deadliest was carried out not by Islamists, but by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995—and law enforcement, the SPLC stressed, are doing the public a huge disservice if they view terrorism as an exclusively Islamist phenomenon.

You will note that while the time frame for the data from the Southern Poverty Law Center is different from the New America report that the conclusion is the same - non-Islamic related domestic terrorists are a greater threat.  The article then goes on to discuss six terrorist groups that claim to have Christian views.  You can find another list of eight terrorist groups that claim to have Christian views here.

In the last two days the Republican Presidential candidates and the media have given us many perfect examples of our unwillingness to accept the fact that Christian extremists are just as bad as Islamic extremists.  Yesterday, The Washington Post published an article entitled "Cruz: 'No meaningful risk' of Christians committing terrorism" (here).  Cruz's comment is patently false and provided the perfect opportunity for the media to expose the false narrative that we only need to be concerned about terrorists who claim to believe in Islam.  However, the author of the article, Katie Zezima, never once mentions the fact that Cruz's comment is factually incorrect.  Cruz was making the point that the United States should only take Christian refugees from Syria. Cruz was using fear of the "others" and the terrible attacks on Paris for his own selfish political gain, and Ms. Zezima and The Washington Post let him do it.  Jeb Bush has taken a similar position without coming out and saying that Christians are safe and Muslims are not.

The Washington Post is not alone in missing the opportunity.  Time and President Obama both missed today.  Time published an article (here) about President Obama's reaction to Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush.  Neither President Obama nor Time mentioned that the premise for the Bush/Cruz position was blatantly false.  President Obama focused only on not having a religious test for refugees.

The Republican governors are now lining up to declare that their states will not take any Syrian refugees because they do not want to put their populations at risk for terrorist attacks.  While they do not say out loud what Bush and Cruz have said about accepting Christians only, it is clear that they are focusing on creating fear and hatred of "others".

We must stand up to bigotry in all its forms, just as we must have compassion for those who feel the pain of terrorism.  We must not permit people to fuel hatred and fear for their own selfish political gain, just as we must not give into the fear that terrorists strive to create.

Thank you for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal