shaDEz Report This Comment Date: July 22, 2007 04:19AM
Pressure to support the "lesser evil" Democrats in the next
Presidential elections is already high. One of the center-pieces of the
Democratic Party is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Many have illusions that as a
Democrat and a woman, her policies will be much more "worker
friendly". But in the final analysis, she defends the same system of
capitalist exploitation and imperialism as Bush Jr., Bill Clinton, Bush Sr.,
Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc. She is sparing
no expense and choosing her words carefully in order to prove to the
billionaires that really run this country that she will be a loyal defender of
the established order. This is the same approach taken by every other candidate
for the Presidency, be they Republicans or Democrats.
The war in Iraq and its effects here at home is the most important issue on
Americans' minds, with a vast majority in favor of an immediate or phased
withdrawal. Due to its rising unpopularity, many Democrats are trying to wriggle
out of the political fall-out the war is causing, and Hillary is no exception.
So where does the Democratic front-runner really stand?
Hillary has been in positions of power for nearly two decades. During this
entire time, the U.S. government has brought untold horrors upon the people of
Iraq and other ex-colonial countries. She has been a strong supporter of the war
from the beginning, having voted to authorize the invasion. She is opposed
mostly to how Bush has conducted the war, and even now she is trying to out-do
the neo-cons on battle plans for Iran.
Her pro-war efforts go back to her years as First Lady. In 1999 she pushed for
the 78 day round-the-clock bombing of Yugoslavia. While on a trip to Africa at
that time she phoned her husband, President Bill Clinton, and as she put it,
"I urged him to bomb." In 1996 she toured Eastern Europe with
Madeleine Albright, after which Hillary played an instrumental role in getting
Albright confirmed in her post as Secretary of State. This was not long after
Albright's infamous response to a question about the strangling sanctions the
U.S. had imposed on Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have
died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the
price worth it?" Albright's response: "I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." In 1998 Bill
Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made overthrowing Saddam Hussein a
stated goal of U.S. foreign policy. This followed a Mid-East tour by Madeleine
Albright highlighting the serious commitment the U.S. had to bringing about
"regime change" in Iraq. That same year, Saddam kicked out UN
inspectors after various provocations. This was the excuse Bill Clinton needed
to launch Operation Desert Fox, a massive assault of aerial bombing and cruise
missile strikes on Iraq.
Much like the rhetoric used by GW Bush in the build up to the current Iraq war,
U.S. political leaders across party lines did everything they could to whip up a
nationalist hysteria as to the imminent threat posed by Saddam and his alleged
WMD to U.S. and world security. These words by Bill Clinton could just as well
have come from Bush Jr.: "So long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens
the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, [and] the security of the
world." And "The credible threat to use force, and, when necessary,
the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction program, curtail his aggression, and prevent another Gulf War."
Hillary Clinton was a staunch supporter of these actions. This brings us to the
current invasion and occupation of Iraq. During an April 20, 2004 interview on
Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the
Iraq war resolution.
"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't
regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context
of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly,
Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more
than a decade ... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to
the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and
friends around the world shared." But, she said, the Bush Administration
"really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't
let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of
debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like
that."
This notion that Bush and the clique he heads up were the sole perpetrators of
the calamity in Iraq is nonsense. Hillary regularly attended high level meetings
dealing with Iraq, including a visit to the White House when Condoleezza Rice
was making the case for the Iraq resolution, and never raised any
objections.
On the question of Iran, Hillary has this to say: "I believe that we lost
critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the
threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like
Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines.
But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to
Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American
and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses.
U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not
– permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that
from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by
China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the
United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear
message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to
acquire nuclear weapons."
Unlike Bush, Hillary actually has a good understanding of world relations from
the perspective of the U.S. ruling class, so no one can accuse her of being a
mere puppet. She only opposes Bush's Iraq policy because it has failed - it has
nothing to do with her opposing the predations of U.S. imperialism. Despite her
efforts to distance herself from direct complicity in the Iraq fiasco, it can be
seen from the above that Hillary has a long history of supporting U.S.
imperialism.
When U.S. presidents take office, they bring with them many political advisers
and cabinet members - none of whom are elected. If we look at Hillary Clinton's
inner political circle, we can get a flavor of what her Administration might
look like.
Former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, a bourgeois publicist and banker, is
apparently lined up for the job of Secretary of State if Clinton wins in 2008.
He was a big supporter of military action on Iraq during the Bill Clinton years,
and remains so, although like so many others who are now posing as
"anti-war", he is simply unhappy with the way it is being
conducted.
Although not confirmed, it is widely believed that Madeleine Albright may play a
big role in the Hillary presidency. As a strong believer in the executive power
when it comes to the military, she stated before the war that Bush, "should
have the authority," and once remarked to Collin Powell, "What's the
point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use
it?"
On the most pressing foreign policy issues, Hillary often consults with former
think tank researcher Andrew Shapiro, who is extremely hawkish on the matter of
Israel. He will likely play an important role in helping shape the foreign
policy of her presidency.
Jeffery Smith, who served on the CIA's general council, is another regular
advisor to Clinton. A West Point graduate "soaked in military culture, he
has worked on the Senate Armed Services Committee. While he too has tactical
disagreements on the actual carrying out of the war, he agrees with the war
itself.
Once again, it is clear that Hillary's main aim is to assure the ruling class
that she will be a loyal defender of their interests and profits around the
world. She can't possibly serve two masters - working people and the
capitalists. Based on the above, it's clear who she will choose. For some, the
fact that Hillary is a woman, and that she is allegedly a great defender of
women's rights is reason enough to support her. But the reality is that the vast
majority of women in the U.S. and across the planet are not in the privileged
position of Hillary Clinton. Due to the actions of U.S. capitalism and
imperialism, which she supports enthusiastically, hundreds of millions of women
around the world live in conditions of abject misery and subjugation. The vast
majority of women in the U.S. and across the planet are not in the privileged
position of Hillary Clinton. The wars Hillary supports are a disaster for women
around the globe and here at home, as health care, child care, education, and
other vital services are cut to fund them.
Then there are those who say that because Hillary is a woman she is
"unfit" to be the President. We reject this sexist viewpoint, which
has no place in working class politics. What matters most is not a person's
gender, but the class interests he or she represents and defends.
Any and all gains made by women under capitalism are under constant threat of
reversal. American working women's interests are not represented by the likes of
Hillary, Condoleezza, or Madeleine Albright, who are among the best defenders of
the capitalist system of exploitation. Rather, working women should look to
working class heroes like Lucy Parsons, Mother Jones, and Genora Johnson who
fought for genuine equality and in the interests of all working people.
As for her position on immigration, Hillary is crystal clear: "I am, you
know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."
As early as 2004, she began to stake out her claim against immigrants, going
even further than Bush to paint immigrants as criminals, lumping immigrant
workers with the threat of "terrorism". She has since voted for an act
that establishes a guest worker program, increases border security and
enforcement, and makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a
fee an undocumented immigrant. She also voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006,
which approved the construction of a 700 mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico
border.
"People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. I mean, come up to
Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in
Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked
up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work." NAFTA was
signed into law under Bill Clinton - these "loads" of people are the
result.
If elected President, Hillary Clinton would be yet another in a long line of
representatives of the U.S. ruling class. Just as her foreign policy would be
one of war and exploitation, her domestic policy would be aimed at maximizing
the profits of the capitalists. Simply put, we oppose Hillary Clinton because
her interests are diametrically opposed to ours. Working people need a genuine
alternative - a mass party of labor, armed with socialist policies that can
truly address our needs. Until we break from the two parties of the bosses, we
will always be under the rule and domination of their corporate paymasters.
Written by Shane Jones
After years of Bush’s open-ended war on working people at home and abroad,
many on the “left” are desperate for an alternative. For many, that
alternative is Barack Obama, a Democratic Senator from Illinois. Obama, who is
very careful with his words and actions, has done a good job so far of
portraying himself as a “sensible progressive”. However, far from being a
“progressive” alternative, Obama is at his core a typical representative of
the bosses’ political parties. Despite presenting himself as a candidate of
“change”, Obama is a defender of capitalism and imperialism, and hence of
exploitation and oppression. On all fundamentals, he is far closer to Bush than
he is to being a genuine alternative for working people.
Far from seeking the end of class exploitation, Obama is a true believer in the
capitalist system. Along with the likes of Joe Lieberman, a political and
financial supporter of Obama whom Barack considers to be his “mentor”, he
makes it clear that the Democratic Party is a party of the bosses: “The last I
checked John Kerry believes in the superiority of the U.S. military, Hillary
Clinton believes in the virtues of capitalism…”
Obama even criticizes the Democratic party from the right: “…Democrats are
confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending
every New-Deal and Great-Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving
ratings of 100 percent from liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem
exhausted, a constant game of defense bereft of energy and new ideas needed to
address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated
inner city.”
Obama, who earned just under $1million last year, is a supporter of the Hamilton
Project, a group founded by Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury and
current chair of Citigroup (the world’s largest company, with total assets of
$2.02 trillion). As a Senator, Obama opposed a bill that would place a 30
percent interest rate cap on credit cards, which would help relieve high
interest payments for many U.S. working families. Yet he voted for a “tort
reform” bill that rolls back workers’ ability to seek redress and
compensation if they are wronged by their employer.
On the question of health care, Obama is opposed to national single-payer health
care, on the grounds that it would leave workers in the private health care
industry, such as Kaiser and BlueCross BlueShield, unemployed! This is a smoke
screen of the worst kind. He is attempting to appear pro-worker, while he is
really defending the interests of big business against working people. Instead,
he is in favor of “voluntary solutions” as opposed to “government
mandates”. Yet as every worker knows, the bosses never “volunteer” to give
us raises or benefits. The super-profitable health care industry is not going to
sacrifice its profits. Obama is merely evading the question. He might as well
state the truth: he is not for any fundamental change.
Like all good big business politicians, when the capitalists come with money and
gifts, Obama becomes their political guardian angel. For example, he is a loyal
defender of the leading U.S. nuclear power company Exelon, which has given more
than $74,000 to his campaign. Exelon is the parent company of ComEd, the energy
company currently price gouging Illinois consumers. Agro-capitalists Archer
Daniels Midland have reportedly lent him the use of private jets for his
campaigns. A few months after entering the Senate, Obama bought more than
$50,000 worth of stock in AVI BioPharma, a pharmaceutical company that would
have benefited from legislation that he backed. George Soros, the prominent
billionaire and master of capital speculation, supports Obama, although he said
he would support Hillary Clinton, if she won the Democratic nomination. In
either case, he feels confident that his billions of dollars will be safe.
It is on his “opposition” to the war that Obama has garnered much support,
and understandably so, as the war is every day seen by more and more U.S.
workers as a complete disaster. Many are seeking a real political opposition
against the war, but what exactly does Obama mean when he “speaks out against
the war”? Far from opposing the war on the basis that it is a war on workers
and the poor at home and abroad, he would have preferred that the war had been
better presented and more carefully planned. He is in favor of U.S. imperialism
winning, but adds a pinch of semi-populist rhetoric, as many Democratic
politicians have been doing as of late. He was simply quicker to jump on the
bandwagon.
Obama is in fact a vigorous supporter of the wider “war on terror”. As he
stated in a so-called anti-war speech in October 2002: “You want a fight,
President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through
effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial
networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves
more than color-coded warnings.” Obama voted to re-authorize the USA PATRIOT
Act, which has been heavily criticized by civil rights layers as curtailing
civil liberties. He opposed moves to censure Bush for illegal wiretapping, and
voted to approve Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
Obama has called for a “phased withdrawal” of U.S. troops and an opening of
diplomatic dialogue with Iraq’s neighbors, Syria and Iran. In other words, he
understands that the best U.S. imperialism can do is soften the blow of a
defeat; outright victory is now an impossibility. Like other slightly more
far-sighted leaders of the ruling class, he approaches this from the perspective
of preserving the cohesion and readiness of the military – so it can be used
in other imperialist adventures such as Afghanistan and beyond. Far from calling
for an immediate withdrawal of occupying forces in Iraq, Obama has the
perspective of further interventions in the region, with one possible scenario
involving U.S. forces remaining in an occupied Iraq for an “extended period of
time”, acting as a launching pad. This would call for “a reduced but active
U.S. military presence” that “protects logistical supply points” and
“American enclaves like the Green Zone,” which would send “a clear message
to hostile countries Iran and Syria that we plan to remain a key player in the
region.” U.S. troops “remaining in Iraq” will “act as rapid reaction
forces to respond to emergencies and to go after terrorists.” Above all,
Obama wants a “pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq,”
and to “defeat the insurgency.” These, of course, are mutually exclusive
aims. The insurgency is the popular uprising of an occupied people. The only
solution is the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. and “coalition” troops from
Iraq.
In March, Obama called Iran’s government “a threat to all of us ... [The
U.S.] should take no option, including military action, off the table.” He
added that the U.S.’ “primary means” of relating to Iran should be
“sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions.”
In short, Obama is trying to be everything to everyone, both for the
continuation of the war for one sector of the ruling class, and posturing
against the war for another sector, all while demagogically trying to win votes
from genuinely anti-war working people.
Obama, who could well be the first black U.S. president, has attempted to make
benign the malignancy that is racism in the United States. American capitalism
relies heavily on the oppression of minorities as a means of exploiting and
dividing the working class. But Obama believes that “cultural issues” are at
the core of black poverty – an argument also embraced by many right-wing
racists. Even a cursory look at the history of oppression that black workers and
communities have been faced with shows that this has little to do with
“cultural issues”, but rather, has everything to do with the social
structure of U.S. capitalism.
Are police brutality, the de-funding of inner city schools, and the gutting of
public housing a “cultural issue”? Should the brutal repression and
liquidation of an entire generation of black leadership, including MLK Jr. and
Malcolm X, be considered a “cultural issue”? Is the fact that one in three
black men in their twenties are in prison, out on bail, on probation, court
supervision, community service, or parole a “cultural issue”? And yet Obama
sees the discrepancy between blacks and whites in the U.S. as a question of
personal drive or the lack thereof. He has claimed that blacks can’t
progress, “If we don’t start instilling in our young children that there is
nothing to be ashamed about in educational achievement. I don’t know who told
them that reading and writing and conjugating your verbs was something
‘white.’ ”
Certainly, there are those who are critical of Obama due to the color of his
skin. We soundly reject this racist point of view. Black workers in the U.S.,
along with their class sisters and brothers of all races and ethnicities, run
the world’s most advanced economy every day. There is no reason why black men
or women cannot not play a leading role in the political shaping of society.
However, for Marxists, it is a question of which class interests someone
defends. It must be made clear that anyone who wants to seriously tackle racism
must be prepared to tackle capitalism. As a representative of the capitalist
class, Obama is neither willing nor able to tackle either.
When it comes to immigration, Obama has sought to lump immigrant workers with
terrorists in the drive to militarize the border. Obama took an active role in
the Senate’s drive for further border security linked to new immigration laws.
Beginning in 2005, he co-sponsored the “Secure America and Orderly Immigration
Act” introduced by Sen. John McCain. He also supported the “Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act” sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, which did not pass
the House. In 2006, Obama supported another related bill, the $7 billion dollar
“Secure Fence Act”, which authorized the construction of 700 miles of
fences, walls and other security measures to be built up along the U.S.-Mexico
border. President Bush signed it into law in October 2006, calling it, “an
important step toward immigration reform.” Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff, whose appointment Obama approved, said the bill would “make
substantial progress towards preventing terrorists and others from exploiting
our borders,” directly implying immigrants and terrorists are one and the
same.
He is also a strong supporter of “guest worker programs” and gave glowing
praise to the May 18th proposal in the Senate that includes provisions to detain
up to 27,500 immigrants per day, to hire 18,000 new border guards, and to
construct an additional 370 miles of border walls.
Bush and his circle are certainly an extremely hawkish section of the ruling
class, with plans for imperialist conquest based on their specific economic
interests: oil and other energy holdings, armaments, construction, and other
contract companies that benefit from military interventions, such as
Halliburton. But the distinction between Bush and Obama is not principled.
Obama, along with the more far-sighted strategists of the ruling class, seek
only to curtail the excesses of the Bush clique, which are a threat to the
stability of U.S. capitalism as a whole. In this sense, Barrack Obama actually
more faithfully represents the interests of the capitalist class at this point
in history than Bush. So is Obama really an alternative for working people? The
facts speak for themselves.
Written by Shane Jones
) Considering bill
clintons years i would probably go with Hillary if there was a guarantee it
would go back to they way it was then, but thats not going to happen.
, and yet it is cool to reverse the shit on me
for something my ignorant asshole ancestors might have done...
