Ever since I arrived in the United States to begin my university education in 1982, I have been baffled by arguments used by white (and some Black and Latino) American progressives, leftistsand socialists to justify voting for Democratic presidential and congressional candidates.
Unlike mainstream liberal and conservative Americans, who believe their country is Gods gift to the world, the arguments of progressives often stress that Democrats are the lesser evil of the two contending parties.
The Democratic commitment to the rich was made amply clear with the major subsidies given to them by Clinton and Obama
Many agree that, in the words of Gore Vidal: There is only one party in the United States, the Property party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinairein their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt - until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.
Still, progressives always proceed according to the lesser evil theory. If I raised the question of US imperial policy, dubbed foreign policy in the US liberal mainstream media, I would be told by the more astute progressives that both parties were equally imperialist, and therefore their vote for the Democrats was justified by distinctions in their domestic policies.
Still, because the elected Democratic presidents after Ronald Reagan, namely Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, were as neoliberal as Reagan and proceeded with his agenda of mercilessly dismantling the US welfare state, I remained at a loss as to what magnitude of difference existed between the two parties.
The more class-conscious socialists assured me that they were under no illusions that either party defended the white poor, let alone the downtrodden, impoverished racial minorities of Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. Indeed, they insisted that both parties defended the rich, with the Democrats also defending the middle class in a limited way, although that commitment had declined measurably since the Clinton years.
Sowhat, I asked, are the essential benefits to middle-class Americans that you are defending as progressives, socialistsand leftists? Their sober responses highlighted issues of healthcare, social securityand womens reproductive rights. I replied that all of the above had been weakened by the neoliberal Democrats.
Support for womens right to abortion declined considerably when the Clinton administration declared that abortions should be safe, legaland rare. Obama acknowledged the arguments of pro-lifers and called for reducing the demand for abortion, while Joe Biden, until his recent campaign, was a regular supporter of the 1976 Hyde Amendment (he changed his position in 2019), which prohibits federal healthcare programmes from directly funding abortion procedures except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.
As for Social Security, a bipartisan effort began the war on it in a set of 1983 congressional amendments, which Reagan signed into law. Both Clinton and Obama attempted to cut Social Security and government health benefits to Americans during their respective administrations, but were prevented from doing so by the Monica Lewinsky scandal in Clintons case, and public opposition in Obamas.
As for health services, attempts to offer universal healthcare to all Americans were obstructed by Clinton and later Obama, who adopted a Republican plan to subsidise private, for-profit health insurance companies, rebranded as Obamacare, and who paved the way for the horror that Americans found themselves in with the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The US empire is falling apart. But things can always get worse
Oscar Rickett
While President Donald Trump also proposed cutting health benefits, which he did not do, anti-Trump propagandists accused him of proposing to cut Social Security, which he never did.
What about the Democratic policies of enriching the rich? Yet again, the party's commitment to the rich was made amply clear with the major subsidies given to them by Clinton and Obama. The latter subsidised them to the tune of $350bn in his bailoutof the banks at the expense of middle-class homeowners whose houses were foreclosed upon. Obama did not hold Wall Street firms accountable for the economic meltdown, which followedClintons 1999 repeal of New Deal-era banking regulations, but rewarded them instead.
So what justifies progressive, leftistand socialist Americans voting for the Democrats as the lesser evil? Is it ideological blindness, or attachment to the cosmetic political language of Democratic politicians, whose actions might have been worse than Trumps, but whose style of delivery tends to be kinder and gentler?
Why did the policies of Clinton,which transformed the criminal justice system in 1994 to expand the mass incarceration of African Americans, not cause a public outcry amongliberals? Indeed, it was none other than Biden who helped to write the crime bill - thesame Biden who opposed the racial integration of schools in Delaware back in the 1970s. And what about Kamala Harris, the grand incarcerator,who may succeed Biden in the2024 election, assuming he does not step down due to ill health before then?
America Last: Coming to terms with the new world order
Why did Obamas deportation ofmillions of illegal immigrants not garner the kind of popular opposition that Trumps policy, which is a mere continuation of Obamas atrocities, has encountered? While the American Civil Liberties Union challenged Obama in the courts, such legal opposition never translated into a public outcry against the Deporter-in-Chief.
Why was there no outrage over the fact thatit was only in the last few months of Obamas eight-year term that his Justice Department finally prosecuted one lone white cop for the racist murder of an African American?
In four years, Trumps Justice Department did not prosecute a single white killer-cop, but this was a continuation of Obamas practices. Yes, Obamas Justice Departmentpursued pattern of practice investigations against police departments, whichTrumpdiscontinued- but that is hardly a major achievement on Obamas part.
And, yes, the so-called Muslim ban - yet another of Trumps racist policies against some Muslim-majority countries -whichpeople forget was based onalist of countriesprepared by none other than Obama.
A legitimate feeling of horror was expressed on account of the 13 federal executions of convicted criminals carried out by the Trump administration in recent months, but these were never compared with the thousands of people that Obama killed by checking targets off his weekly drone kill list. Does it not matter to US progressives and leftists that unlike his Democratic predecessors, Trump, while continuing some of the subcontracted wars that Obama started - and presiding over a rise in civilian deaths as a result of US actions -did not launch a single new all-out war on some hapless country?
There is no such thing as American 'foreign' policy when US power controls the entire globe, making foreign policy 'domestic' policy
Could all these people who voted for Biden (slightly more than half of those who voted) -especially the benighted, white liberal intelligentsia - not know that many of the things they complained about during Trumps rule were in fact done by their own beloved liberal presidents?
Most of them know, and their campaign against Trump was nothing but hypocrisy for the sake of propaganda, so that the poor and downtrodden would believe that Trump was evil while Obama, Clinton, Biden and Harris were good -or at least, the "lesser evil.
In my conversations with progressive, leftistand socialist Americans over the decades, I have tried to point out that the US is not just the leader of the world, as asserted by liberal and conservative Americansequally committed to US jingoism, but that the US has been since 1991 the primary ruler of the world.
I explain to them thatas US citizens, they are the only people on Earth who have the right to vote for a government that rules the entire globe, and that they are thus complicit in American imperial crimes when they decide, based on some illusory domestic agenda of the lesser evil, to vote for a government that would launch wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people. I add that there is no such thing as American foreign policy when US power controls the entire globe, making foreign policy domestic policy.
Like their liberal and conservative patriotic and imperialist compatriots, many progressive and socialist Americans are not moved by such arguments. Indeed, they enjoin poor white Americans (the deplorables as former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called them), along with downtrodden Black, Latinoand Native American communities to join them in celebrating the Biden victory.
Why do they expect these Americans to celebrate with them, let alone the rest of the Third World - where millions have been killed by US firepower and covert operations since 1945, in wars launched by both Democratic and Republican leaders- when they know the US will probably initiate more wars against them? The reason is that these progressive and leftist Americans, like their liberal and conservative compatriots, are beneficiaries of theracist, classistand imperialist US system, which has always prevented them from seeking any real radical change.
The most they are willing to do is vote for a leftist imperialist Democrat, such asBernie Sanders-who, like them, commits to changing very little, yet presumably also represents the lesser evil.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
See the article here:
The myth of the 'lesser evil': Why US progressives back Biden - Middle East Eye