Sunday, April 10, 2016

Robert Parry — Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?

Savvy neocons see Hillary Clinton as their Trojan Horse to be pulled into the White House by Democratic voters, raising the question: would a Clinton-45 presidency mean more wars, asks Robert Parry.

The Democratic Party establishment seems determined to drag Hillary Clinton’s listless campaign across the finish line of her race with Bernie Sanders and then count on Republican divisions to give her a path to the White House. But – if she gets there – the world should hold its breath.

If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its “regime change” strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia.…
If you had any doubts over "Clinton must be stopped," this will convince you why, unless you happen like war, that is, and think that more war is just was the doctor ordered.

Consortiums News
Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?
Robert Parry


circuit said...


It catches my eye every time...MNE's slogan...Shouldn't it read "... and are virulently anti-neoliberaLIST." or perhaps "...anti-neoliberal" ?

Footsoldier said...

A great interview with Hudson and Black today about Krugman.

Tom Hickey said...

@ circuit

That's up to Mike. It's his place.

Tom Hickey said...

BTW, I have up front about thinking that MMT is the best next step for the present system away from the market state of neoliberal capitalism in the direction of the welfare state of a mixed economy. But I don't see MMT as the basis for new vision to energize the real left since it is an iteration of the present system, which from a leftist perspective is fundamentally flawed institutionally. The welfare state is still a subset of capitalism with the existing institutional arrangements left in place.

Not that MMT could not be articulated as a stone in the foundation for a new vision of institutional arrangements. It can, since the world is going to be operating on a market system based on money for some time in the future. The change of frame needs to be in viewing money as a public utility rather than a tool of capital.

I have further said that the objective of a genuine left is ending the property over people and environment regime and the profit-wages system that underlies distribution under capitalism.

I would not use the Marxist term "exploitation" but rather economic rent, which amounts to the same thing from a biological POV, namely a free rider issue. The left needs to reverse the free ride argument away from the alleged maker-taker frame to a host-parasite frame.

Bob said...

Lets drop the terms 'left' and 'right' in favor of specifics.

Bob said...

It's not looking like Clinton can be stopped. Sanders is short on the all important 'super delegates' while Trump is short of a majority. The Repubs will arrange for Trump to lose the nomination. If they choose Cruz, the religious nut, Hillary will win.

Malmo's Ghost said...

I'm pretty certain we finally get a third party, so all is not lost. Would be great if we get a fourth party too. Screw the two party system in diverse America.

Tom Hickey said...

Lets drop the terms 'left' and 'right' in favor of specifics.

Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.[5][6][7]

Researchers have also said that the Right includes fascists, racists[8], Nazis, capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.[9]

Wikipedia/Left–right politics

Bob said...

Not specific enough, Tom. These terms can mean support or opposition to a set of policies - may as well list the policies instead.

Tom Hickey said...

Did you read the whole entry. It is long and the left-right dichotomy is standard in political discourse. Like all dichotomies it is a simplification but a useful one. Clarification can be added as needed.

MRW said...

Left? Right? I despise the left shit. The whacko right has no appeal either.

Bob said...

Let political discourse be focused on actual policies, rather than how they fit some anachronistic dichotomy. Clarification can be achieved by examining why so-and-so supports or opposes a specific initiative.

It is of no usefulness to me if someone labels themselves as left, right or eclectic. My life is affected by specific policy measures. Some of these are economic, such as the JG, BIG, NAIRU, NAIBER, etc. I don't care whether these are considered 'left' or 'right' policies, I'm concerned with their efficacy.

Ignacio said...

"I'm eclectic", sounds cools... Anyone for the Eclectic Party?

Anyway, agreed, I think labels only are good to distract from debates about the substance. That's why politicians love them so much, it frames things in a "us" vs. "the Other" debate, making it all a white/black dispute.

Tom Hickey said...

Let political discourse be focused on actual policies, rather than how they fit some anachronistic dichotomy.

Basically, "left" = radical and forward looking, wishing to experiment, and "right" = reactionary — backward looking and wishing to either preserve the status quo or return to the status quo ante, like the gold standard.

This is feature of the historical dialectic that result in the waves of time that are sometimes dominated by radical forces and at tother times by reactionary. There are also cycle of waves within cycles.

BTW, it's also exhibited in behavior of markets.

Bob said...

I would say the 'right' has some forward looking views, with the UBI being an example.
Conservatives tend to long for a past that never was.
Liberalism seeks to preserve the status quo - and they're on the 'left'.