Moving Hillary Clinton to the Left

Dear Friends,

There are two interesting articles at Time.com by Rana Foroochar.  One is entitled "How Elizabeth Warren is Yanking Hillary Clinton to the Left" (here) and another entitled, "This Could be Hillary Clinton's Economic Policy" (here).  MSNBC also published an article by Alex Seitz-Weld and Suzy Khimm entitled "Is this Hillary Clinton's Economic Policy" (here).  Both the articles about Secretary Clinton's economic policy discuss a recent report by the Center For American Progress, a pro-Clinton think tank.

Interestingly enough in the last weeks during which there have been terrorist attacks in Nigeria by Boko Haram, terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish community in Paris, Republican congressional efforts to make cuts in Social Security, Republican congressional efforts to push the Keystone XL Pipeline, the initiation of an inquiry by the International Criminal Court into potential war crimes in the most recent Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the Republican efforts to dilute the impact of the Dodd-Frank regulations on Wall Street, Hillary Clinton has been completely absent from the news and has only made one public statement.  That statement was in the form of a tweet. "Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong.  Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for middle class families."

First, it is clear that Secretary Clinton is steering clear from taking a position on anything that is or may be in the future controversial.  The national media and virtually all politicians are refusing to talk about the terrorist attacks by Boka Haram or the victims of the latest violence between Israel and Palestine, even though in both cases far more innocent people were killed.  I cannot help but think that the lack of outrage in the United States and other western countries over the deaths of innocent Nigerians and Palestinians has a lot to do with the otherness attached to those people.  How can you explain the incredible difference in response to those atrocities and what just happened in Paris?  In any case, that is a question too hot for Secretary Clinton to deal with.

Of course the issues of freedom of speech raised by the attack on Charlie Hebdo raise a lot of difficult questions as well.  Secretary Clinton,  a hawk who voted for the Iraq war and for the Patriot Act twice and a member of the Obama administration that has attacked freedom of the press with a vigour normally only seen in Republican administrations, has not been a strong advocate for freedom of expression and would have great difficulty navigating the difficult issues raised by the recent Paris attacks to say nothing of the crack down on freedom of expression following the Charlie Hebdo attack.

I am actually surprised that she has not made a statement condemning the opening of an investigation by the International Criminal Court into the latest Israeli/Palestinian violence.  Normally she defends Israel regardless of what it has done.  I am at a loss to explain her silence on this issue although one might posit that there are more and more Democrats that want to hold both the Palestinians and the Israelis responsible for their violent actions, so perhaps she thinks her silence will not offend anybody.

Of course, Secretary Clinton is maintaining her silence on the Keystone XL Pipeline.  This issue is a symbolic one pitting the environment against short term profits for giant oil companies.  Secretary Clinton's ties to big business and Wall Street make it difficult if not impossible for her to oppose the pipeline.  I should note she has not commented on the fact that 2014 was the warmest year on record either.

Secretary Clinton chose, as her only public comment, to tweet about the Republican efforts to dilute the regulations imposed on Wall Street by the Dodd-Frank legislation.  Her comment was limited to a tweet and hence could not contain any real substance.  What a perfect way to try to walk the fine line between her Wall Street backers and Elizabeth Warren.

It is the issue of Secretary Clinton's closeness to Wall Street that made the articles about a report by the Center for American Progress, a think tank full of friends of Hillary and Bill, so interesting to me.   The two articles about the report cited above were clear about the ties of the think tank to the Clintons and their advisors and the fine line that the report walks to not offend Wall Street while trying to sound like Elizabeth Warren.  The report was written by a group of Clinton loyalists lead by Larry Summers.  This group are deregulators and people that supported NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements.  They share in the blame for the great recession and the ever increasing gap in wealth and income in the United States.  In light of the popularity of Elizabeth Warren, they and Secretary Clinton are trying to reinvent themselves as populists.

I am not yet convinced that Secretary Clinton can actually reinvent herself as a populist and true liberal.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Charlie Hebdo, Hatred, Disrespect and Loss of Community

Dear Friends,

The news here in France is all about the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo.  In Villefranche-sur-mer, where I am, a small town far from Paris, a special ceremony to greet the mayor has been cancelled and all the townspeople are being encouraged to go to Nice for a silent vigil tomorrow.  There are flyers and signs everywhere in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, the victims and their families.  They all read something like "Nous sommes tous Charlie." It is the worst terrorist attack on French mainland soil for 50 years.  I cannot help but feel the pain that the French are feeling.

Unfortunately, I also cannot help but think that those within France, the United States and other places that thrive on and encourage fear, hatred and disrespect play a role in the breakdown of civility which can lead to this type of attack.  These attacks are not attacks on free speech. They are part of a larger war by fundamentalists and extremists who are the subject of hatred, discrimination and disenfranchisement, none of which justify the actions but certainly explain why radicalisation occurs.

The far right in France, personified by the Front National, its most popular far right party that polled around 25% in the last elections in which the turnout was very low, has been fanning anti-immigrant, anti-Islam and anti-Semitic sentiments which has lead to a recent increase in Islamophobic and anti-Semitic attacks across France.  The other political parties are excluding the Front National from the idea of French unity after the attack and apparently did not issue an invitation to the FN to a public rally to show unity in the face of the Charlie Hebbo terrorist attack.  There is a significant feeling in France that it is the disenfranchisement of the immigrants, caused by the fear and hatred encouraged by the NF,  that has made it easy to radicalise people.

Even though the NF has been excluded, there is an incredible sense of solidarity in France in the aftermath of these attacks and the subsequent hostage situations that have just been resolved.  I only hope that in the days ahead, this unity is not squandered as it was in the United States after the 9/11 attacks.

Of course France is not the only country in which the far right relies on fear and hatred of those that are "others".  The far right in the United States does exactly the same thing.  A significant part of the Republican party does everything it can to make people afraid and particularly afraid of anybody that is not a "white American".  This approach is clear in such things such as immigration, but it is just as present in the economic discussions when the "others" are the poor and those who receive government assistance, a majority of which are non-white.

Republican candidates for President have dropped any pretence of being "compassionate conservatives".  Uniformly they are opposed to an increase in the minimum wage, they support the repeal of Obamacare, they oppose immigration reform, they are in favour of lower taxes on the rich, they are opposed to any effort to reduce the immoral economic gap between the rich and the poor, they want to suppress the vote of those that are "other", they want to eliminate the economic safety net, and the list goes on and on.

Relying on fear and hatred to obtain and retain power, leads inevitably to a complete lack of respect for those that are "other".  Representative Joe Wilson's shouting of "You lie!!" at President Obama during his State of the Union address, is a comparatively mild example of the disrespect that is engendered by the Republicans and others that stoke fear and hatred of "others".  Unfortunately the examples of public disrespect have been increasing including the recent disrespect by some of the New York City police who have turned their backs on Mayor de Blasio.  There can be no debate that disrespect has become epidemic in recent times, and I believe that the public stoking of fear and hatred is largely responsible for this epidemic.

The fear and hatred stoked disrespect for "others" leads to a lack of outrage when violence is committed against "others".  The incredible overreaction and use of excess force by police when a young black male is involved demonstrates a complete lack of respect for them as individuals and human beings.  If young white males were killed by police at the same rate and under the same circumstances as young black males, the public outrage would put an end to that practice immediately.  The same can be said for the number of innocent civilians being killed by the United States drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.  If the United States were killing that many civilians who were of northern European descent, the outrage would be immediate, intense and incredible.

This lack of respect has lead to a breakdown in the idea of community in the United States, and I am afraid throughout the world.  At the end of the day, it can only be a feeling of true community with all others throughout the world that can put a stop to this senseless violence.  We must remember that we are all human beings, and we must act and react accordingly.  We must not disenfranchise, hate or fear the "others".  We must embrace all, even and perhaps especially those that we disagree with.  If we can truly love and respect each other, the process of radicalisation can be dramatically slowed or maybe even stopped. We are all Charlie.  We are all Eric Garner.  We are all Michael Brown.  We are all Tamir Rice.  We are all the innocent people killed by drone strikes.  We are all each other.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal