by William Skink
If you aren’t following the work of Aaron Maté, you should be. His latest piece at The Nation is definitely worth reading. I was interested in this part:
The very fact that Ukrainegate now has Democrats advocating a policy that Obama rejected should be enough to spark consideration of whether briefly not arming Ukraine is really the issue on which to pin removing a president from office. Moving toward impeachment over Ukraine policy also has potential electoral consequences: In 2016, voters rejected the neoconservative worldview that national security bureaucrats like Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison now espouse. Trump, after all, campaigned on improving ties with Russia and falsely presented himself as an opponent of the hawkish legacy that these star impeachment witnesses embody. On this note, the fact that John Bolton may become the Democrats’ next star witness might also hasten some reflection.
The Cold War mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own political fortunes but also global peace. Lost in the outrage over Trump’s potential—and ultimately unrealized—interruption of US military assistance to Ukraine is that Zelensky, the new Ukrainian president, openly campaigned on ending the war with Russia that this military assistance fuels. Zelensky is now under heavy pressure from Ukraine’s far right to abandon his pledge to make peace with Moscow. It does not bode well for Zelensky’s chances if the official opposition party of his US patron is effectively joining hands with his country’s own right-wing forces to continue the war.
How did establishment Democrats turn into hawkish Neocons without hardly anyone noticing? It boggles the mind. And the prospect of John Bolton becoming the Democrats’ next star witness? WTF?!?
These impeachment hearings continue to go off the rails for Democrats, as evidenced by Pamela Karlan’s snark blowback after she said this:
“Contrary to what President Trump has said, Article 2 [of the Constitution] does not give him the power to do anything he wants,” testified Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School. “The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”
While Democrats are busy trying to impeach a president in order to keep their Cold War against Russia proceeding toward mutually assured destruction, Trump is planning to cut food assistance for hundreds of thousands of Americans:
The Trump administration is set to announce a plan that would cut food stamp benefits for approximately 750,000 people, Bloomberg News reported on Tuesday.
The plan, which is scheduled to be announced Wednesday, will make it more difficult for states to gain waivers from a requirement that beneficiaries of food stamps work or are enrolled in a vocational training program, according to Bloomberg, which cited sources familiar with the matter.
If there was any class consciousness left in the Democratic party, Trump’s move to cut food assistance would be met with a vigorous response. Will there be a response? I don’t know. Did Democrats make a big deal about Trump’s tax cuts? Not that I can recall.
And remember, Trump’s tax cut legislation included the establishment of “opportunity zones”, which Missoula’s local officials are promoting as a tool for economic development. For more on that, read my post connecting Engen to Trump and Margaret Thatcher.
No, Democrats gave up class consciousness in preference to identity politics a long time ago. They retreated to the coasts where their elitist donor-base resides because they think fly-over country is full of worthless deplorables who are too ignorant and economically squeezed to be of any value to their political ambitions.
So food stamps will get cut and Democrats will keep self-destructing because they’re more invested in attacking Trump over withholding lethal military aid to a corrupt nation than they are with helping the disenfranchised citizens in their own country.
For an example of the delusional thinking reflected in this sham impeachment, here is a sliver of Pamela Karlan’s testimony:
“America is not just ‘the last best hope,’ as Mr. Jefferies said, but it’s also the shining city on a hill. We can’t be the shining city on a hill and promote democracy around the world if we’re not promoting it here at home.” –Karlan
Yeah, promoting Democracy. Is that what Obama was doing in Ukraine, promoting Democracy? And were Democrats promoting Democracy when they rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders? Were they being supportive of Democracy when they argued in court they have every right TO rig the primary? Yep, that is what DNC lawyers were arguing, and they won. From the link:
“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee—nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial,” Beck said. “And that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white. And they can’t deny that.” He added, “Not only is it in the charter, but it was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee’s employees, including Congresswoman Wassermann Schultz, that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter. And they said it again and again, and we’ve cited several instances of that in the case.”
Later in the hearing, attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” By pushing the argument throughout the proceedings of this class action lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee is telling voters in a court of law that they see no enforceable obligation in having to run a fair and impartial primary election.
There’s your Democracy-loving Democrats, America.