Why people want to become fans of a senator rather than pushing senators to serve the public is beyond me.
Why people want to distract and drain away two years of activism, with the planet in such peril, fantasizing about electing a messiah is beyond me.
And when people who’ve chosen as their messiah someone who isn’t even running for the office they’re obsessed with, respond to criticism with “Well, who else is there?” — that makes zero sense. They’ve made the list and could make it differently.
But here’s what’s really crazy about talking to Elizabeth-Warren-For-
Now, when Congress was cooking up a Grand Bargain to solve the debt “crisis,” people who were polled almost universally rejected any of the acceptable solutions under consideration, such as smashing Social Security. Instead, they said they wanted the rich taxed and the military cut. When pollsters at the University of Maryland show people the federal budget, a strong majority wants big cuts to the military. This is nothing new. People favor cutting war spending. People who elected Obama believed (falsely) that he intended to cut the military.
A different and more substantiated argument would be that turning against military spending would cost Warren the support of wealthy funders and the tolerance of media gatekeepers. But that does not seem to be the argument that Warren-For-Presidenters make.
It’s the “just one issue among many” thing that’s truly nuts. Look at this:
The cost of one weapons system that doesn’t work could provide every homeless person with a large house.
A tiny fraction of military spending could end starvation at home and abroad.
The Great Student Loan Struggle takes place in the shadow of military spending unseen in countries that simply make college free, countries that don’t tax more than the United States, countries that just don’t do wars the way the U.S. does. You can find lots of other little differences between those countries and the U.S. but none of them on the unfathomable scale of military spending or even remotely close to it.
Financially, war is what the U.S. government does. Everything else is a side show.
In the typical U.S. Congressional election, the military budget is never mentioned by any candidate or commentator. But surely it’s fair to ask Senator Warren, with her great interest in financial questions and economic justice, whether she knows the military budget exists and what she thinks of it.
As far as I know, nobody has asked her. When asked about Israel bombing families, she literally ran away. When asked again, she gave her support to the mass killing.
When a candidate is never asked about a subject, most people simply imagine the candidate shares their own view. This is why it’s important to ask.
Of course, many people actually think that war is only one little issue among many others and that, for example, funding schools is totally unrelated to dumping over half the budget into a criminal enterprise. To them I say, please look carefully at the graphic above.
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
2 Comments
No senatorial candidate who is opposed to either U.S. imperialism or the capitalism it enforces on the world can ever hope to get the nomination of either of the twin parties of capitalism nor win an election .
Through a disinforming government and media campaign that begins with everyone’s infancy, the U.S. electorate is overwhelmingly center-right IN HOW IT VOTES – regardless of contrary opinions given when polled .
To paraphrase Orwell ” He who controls the past controls the present and future ”
The oligarchy is in firm control of thought processes and the days of EFFECTIVE large- scale protests and change in favor of the working class and poor are over.
IMO-only the self-inflicted death of capitalism predicted by Ray Kurzweil, the chief of engineering at Google and others will bring about the democratic changes needed for a just and humane society .
What if a candidate came directly out of grassroots movements, rather than coming from outside of the movements and attempting to appeal to them (e.g. Warren)? It’s happened before in other areas: Chokwe Lumumba in Jackson, for instance, or Evo Morales in Bolivia, for a national example.
I could see social movements saying, “Who cares what the major parties say, and what the media says — we’ve developed our own policies and goals, and we’re going to find someone who will actually carry them through, and then organize to get them into office,” and be successful, too.
In regards to the “self-inflicted death of capitalism,” leaving aside the fact that for 150 years various figures have saying that capitalism will fall apart on its own (and it hasn’t!), there’s a very important question that Kurzweil and others have never answered: What exactly ensures that if capitalism does happen to “die” on its own, that whatever comes afterward will be any better? Why would capitalism disintegrate and leave a “just and humane society”, and not a hellish and brutal society? What forces guarantee the former and diminish the chances of the latter?
I just don’t see it happening. Instead, I think it’s up to us to organize to make sure that we win a just and humane society, no matter whether capitalism dies on its own or not.