The good news is the president takes the climate crisis seriously. The bad news is it’s worse than ever. The climate catastrophe didn’t stop because Trump ignored it. Forests didn’t stop burning because he said it was a raking problem. The polar ice caps didn’t stop melting because the U.S. acted as if that didn’t matter. All that just got worse. For four years the earth continued to do what it was on track to do for some time: it got hotter. It did so because of the millions of tons of carbon that the human race pumps into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. And it will keep getting hotter until (and even after) we stop doing that. It’s that simple.

Within days of taking office, the Washington Post reported, Biden stopped the Keystone XL pipeline, returned to the Paris climate agreement, closed the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling, made climate action a priority for every federal agency, imposed a moratorium on federal oil and gas leasing and more. He also “initiated a process to invest in minority and low-income communities that historically have borne the brunt of pollution.” Biden overturned 10 Trump rollbacks of environmental policy “and is targeting more than 60 others.” He has promised to review more than 100.

He did this in two executive orders, one on January 20, the other on January 27. Biden’s first executive order singles out the Trump administration by directing federal agencies to address actions “during the last four years that conflict” with Biden’s climate agenda. It orders a review of all regulations and policies adopted by Trump on the climate and the environment.

These directives, the New York Times reported Biden as saying, “would reserve 30 percent of federal land and water for conservation purposes, make climate policy central to national security decisions and build out a network of electric-car charging stations nationwide.” The bad news was that Biden qualified all this green enthusiasm by repeating that he wouldn’t ban fracking. And he treads very carefully around the right-wing canard that going green is a job-killer. Indeed, “his order creates a task force aimed at economically reviving communities dependent on the fossil fuel industry.”

Biden has other tools at hand to tackle climate change besides his executive orders, which are just a start. There’s also the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This commission could put “carbon prices on electricity, propelling a massive build out of high voltage power lines and making it harder to build natural gas pipelines,” Bloomberg reports, before arguing that Biden can’t rely on congress, because it’s so closely divided.

That’s where FERC comes in, and FERC is doubtless not the only federal board or commission Biden can turn to. This is where his long years in congress and bureaucratic expertise could really have some effect. This is different, to say the least, from the wrecking ball that slammed thorough the delicate climate mitigation machinery of regulation during the Trump years.

Among the splashiest headline-grabbing actions announced by Biden on the climate in the January 20 executive order is the one stopping the Keystone XL pipeline. The revocation cites a 2015 review that concluded Keystone did not serve the U.S. national interest. The order argues that we face a climate crisis which requires “action on a scale and at a speed commensurate with the need to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory.”

The $8 billion pipeline, which would have carried 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day to the Gulf Coast from Canada was rejected by Obama in 2015. As NPR reported when Biden nixed it a second time, “construction on Keystone XL began last year and…about 300 miles of the pipeline has been built so far.” Needless to say, oil and gas industry groups screamed at once about “killing 10,000 jobs.” But the pipeline’s owner, TC Energy Corp. told PolitiFact that that number was really 1000. And even those jobs were temporary. The difference is due to how many jobs were projected to be created by Keystone, and that number was 10,400. However, Biden can just as easily argue that more green-energy jobs will be created instead. In fact, Biden’s clean energy plan aims to generate 10 million jobs. When compared thus, the numbers don’t look so daunting.

Bush was the first president to issue a permit for Keystone, in 2008. The Keystone pipeline system consists of four Phases. The fourth is Keystone XL. It proposes a pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska. Obama rejected the extension over environmental concerns. Upon inauguration, in a body-blow to those who want a livable planet, Trump promptly revived it. Now Biden has axed the pipeline again.

This is a huge victory for the Native people and the environmental groups that opposed the pipeline, but plenty of work remains. Lots of other awful projects wait in the wings. As Nick Estes reported in the Guardian: “In Arizona, where Biden won the Native vote, the Forest Service could, in the coming months, hand over 2400 acres of Chi’chil Bildagoteel, an Apache sacred site, to the Australian mining company Rio Tinto…for a copper mine, which would create a nearly two-mile wide open-pit crater, destroying numerous Native burial sites, ceremonial areas and cultural items.”

Also, there’s still the Dakota Access pipeline. This runs under the Missouri River and, the group Environmental Action charges, is “a spill waiting to happen.” Indian Country Today reports that Biden’s termination of the Keystone XL pipeline has encouraged leaders of four Sioux tribes to ask that he do the same to Dakota Access. “The leaders want Biden to instruct the Army Corps of Engineers to stop the flow of oil through the pipeline,” the publication reports, adding that these leaders cite the Obama administration’s halt for an easement to that pipeline, a decision that Trump reversed at once upon taking office.

Trump also opened the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling. To stop this, Biden’s first executive order issued a moratorium, based on legal deficiencies in Trump’s program, “including the inadequacy of the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall…place a temporary moratorium on…the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program.” Biden’s order states that the secretary shall review the program; it cites Obama’s protection of parts of the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea from oil and gas drilling and Trump’s subsequent revocation of that. Biden reinstates Obama’s orders “in their original form.”

According to High North News: “The new moratorium comes only one day after the Trump administration announced that it had finalized their 10-year leases for oil drilling in the northern part of the refuge, the coastal plain.” Trump did this in the teeth of lawsuits against it from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and the Gwich’in Steering Committee. Major U.S., Canadian and European banks “pledged not to finance projects in the Arctic,” according to the Sierra Club’s magazine.

Apparently, the spectacle of fossil fuel corporations’ depraved assault on one of the worlds’ most pristine wildernesses and the horrendous publicity that would create was too much for some banks. After all, the Arctic Refuge’s species include polar bears, waterbirds, arctic foxes, caribou, moose, Dall sheep, muskoxen and brown and black bears. It is also a wildlife nursery. According to the Alaska Wilderness Society, the Refuge’s “coastal plain serves as birthing grounds for the Porcupine caribou in summer and the most important land denning area for America’s threatened polar bears in winter.” It’s also an avian migration destination: “Approximately 200 species of birds call the Arctic Refuge home at least part of the year, including snowy owls, Arctic terns and golden eagles.” The Society explains that these 19.6 million acres of public land in northeast Alaska include the Mollie Beattie Wilderness, which at eight million acres is “the second largest wilderness area in the U.S.” Indigenous people also live there and don’t appreciate the prospect of their villages polluted by oil drilling and their sacred sites desecrated. There is an Inupiaq village on the Arctic Ocean coast. The Gwich’in people also live in the Refuge.

So saving this primeval wild is a big deal. Just as despoiling it, which Trump did possibly maliciously, also would have been. Trump’s policy offered drilling rights on about one million acres of coastal plain. That included 22 tracts of federal land, about five percent of the Arctic Refuge. But back on January 6, the lease sale only attracted three bidders, one of which was the state of Alaska. Why? Because major oil companies stayed away. But that didn’t stop Trump, determined to desecrate this wilderness. He auctioned off a half a million acres. If not for the pandemic and sagging oil demand, he might have leased much more. The purpose of his unseemly haste with this auction was to lock in as many leases as possible before Biden took office.

This was a very close call. And it may not be the end of the Refuge’s problems. The Republican-led congress approved drilling in the 2017 tax cut act, “requiring lease sales by the end of 2021 and 2024,” reported the Anchorage Daily News. After the auction flopped, “oil production in the refuge, if it ever occurs, is not expected to happen for at least a decade.” Remember, Biden’s moratorium is perforce temporary; he needs congressional action to make it permanent. Those 10-year leases that were issued “create extra legal hurdles for Biden to overcome, but experts have said Biden’s administration has avenues to delay or stop it.”

Unluckily, the coastal plain may contain billions of barrels of oil. That is something senators and other Alaskan leaders find very alluring. They are not concerned with the Gwich’in, who depend on the Porcupine caribou herd for food. Nor are they concerned that burning those barrels of oil would release millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. And now they have a weapon – the leases – and the headaches they create for the Biden administration “if it plans to revoke them” according to the Anchorage Daily News. However, “the federal government has suspended leases before. Former President Barack Obama’s administration suspended oil and gas leases in Montana in an area sacred to the Blackfeet Nation. Federal courts have upheld the decision.”

Biden’s executive order also restores national monuments, specifically Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah and one undersea monument the size of Connecticut, Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Rhode Island. The order’s language focuses on restoring these monuments’ boundaries, which Trump shrank. The review will take 60 days, conducted by the secretary of the interior and also the attorney general, who is involved due to pending litigation. The AG may “provide notice of this order to any court with jurisdiction” over litigation over these monuments and he may “request the court stay the litigation…or seek other appropriate relief.”

Trump constricted the boundaries to open more land for mining. He thus reduced the 1.35-million-acre Bears Ears monument by 85 percent, and cut Grand Staircase-Escalante in half. It was a move in keeping with Trump’s aim to promote oil and gas leasing on protected lands, to gut habitat protections for endangered species and to limit drilling regulations.

But then the lawsuits started coming – from Native nations and tourism and environmental groups. According to National Geographic, while the 1906 Antiquities Act gave Obama the power to protect these monuments, “there is no language in the law, however, granting presidents the right to rescind or cut them.” With oil and gas fields on Bears Ears’ boundaries, there loomed the danger of serious pollution. But for both monuments, Trump touted his reduced boundaries as job creators. The coal at Escalante, however, is deeply buried, and the coal market has collapsed, making that extraction less likely.

“No one values the splendor of Utah more than you do,” Trump told a crowd, when he visited the state to announce his monument edicts, “and no one knows better how to use it.” He also criticized Obama’s creation of such large monuments in the first place: “These abuses of the Antiquities Act give enormous power to faraway bureaucrats at the expense of the people who actually live here, work here and make this place their home.” He showed no such concern for the Indigenous people who have made this place their home since long before Utah was even a state.

According to Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye’s written statement: “The decision to reduce the size of the Monument is being made with no tribal consultation. The Navajo nation will defend Bears Ears.” Begaye affirmed that the Navajos would litigate. The statement announced that the Navajo Nation, four other tribes and a coalition of nonprofits and citizens’ groups had rallied to defend the monument. No wonder Biden’s executive order involves his attorney general. Lots of people sued over Trump’s attempt to trash these monuments. And then there could also be lawsuits from the other side, from those who wanted to mine there.

Biden’s executive order also revokes many of Trump’s orders, memoranda and agency rules and actions. Indeed, section two of Biden’s executive order is titled “Immediate Review of Agency Actions Taken Between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021.” Clearly Biden tried to undo as much of Trump’s environmental damage as he could in one fell swoop.

Noteworthy in this connection is the preamble to the January 20 executive order. In it, Biden invokes listening to science, protecting the environment, limiting exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides, holding polluters accountable and prioritizing environmental justice, among other things. These are the sorts of big claims one associates with campaign promises made to be broken. If Biden does more than a small portion of them, it will be astonishing.

Just take clean water – also mentioned in this introduction. The Flint water crisis began in April 2014, in the Obama years. Obama did not address it in any substantive way, aside from sending in FEMA. Trump certainly didn’t either. So now, in 2021, when Flint finally, allegedly has clean water – guess what? The locals won’t drink it. Would you? If you had brown, lead-polluted water flowing out of your tap for years, courtesy of the state government and they finally claimed they fixed it – would you drink it? Can you blame anyone who wouldn’t?

Flint may now have lead-free water, but plenty of other American cities don’t: Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Newark and Washington, D. C., to name a few. According to Business Insider, Brady, Texas has radium in its water; Baltimore’s cloudy water contains potentially toxic particles; toxic chemicals pollute water in Dos Palos, California; Newburgh, New York had contaminated water last year and Miami tap water contains forever chemicals, PFAS. Trump invoked clean air and clean water, but that was a joke. Now Biden invokes them in his first executive order. If he’s serious, what about all these American cities with dirty tap water? Will he make fixing that a priority? Because he should.

The second executive order, the one from January 27 presents much more of your standard impenetrable government prose, as it places “the climate crisis at the forefront of the Nation’s foreign policy and national security planning,” including rejoining the Paris agreement. In this regard, the order says Biden will host a Leaders Climate Summit, and that the U.S. will reconvene the major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, to pursue “initiatives to advance the clean energy transition, sectoral decarbonization” and more.

The order also calls for integrating climate concerns “across a wide range of international fora,” including the G7 and G10; it announces the U.S. will develop a climate financial plan to help developing countries reduce emissions, protect critical ecosystems, and promote “the flow of capital toward climate-aligned investments and away from high-carbon investments.” The order directs the secretaries of state, treasury and energy to cooperate with the Export-Import Bank and others to help the U.S. “promote ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy.”

A major concern is how the climate catastrophe affects foreign policy and national security. Since the U.S. military is one of the world’s biggest polluters, one would expect that to be addressed. Biden does so – but only to a certain extent and in dense bureaucratese. He calls for assessing “climate impacts of their agency-managed infrastructure abroad (e.g. embassies, military installations).” Biden also orders the director of national intelligence to prepare a “National Intelligence Estimate on the national and economic security impacts of climate change.” He directs numerous bureaucratic bigwigs to work together to produce “an analysis of the security implications of climate change (Climate Risk Analysis) that can be incorporated into modeling, simulation, war-gaming…” Just what we need: green war-games. Or maybe Biden is concerned about climate-caused freak typhoons interfering with the U.S. navy war games in the South China Sea. Either way, it’s not hard to brainstorm better ways to focus on the U.S. military’s humongous pollution problem.

In the section on taking a government-wide approach to the climate crisis, Biden cooks up an alphabet soup of departments and advisors, who are to support the Climate Policy Office. Then he creates a National Climate Task Force. Everybody’s on it. As far as I can tell, every secretary, director, chair, administrator in this administration participates in this task force.

Buried in this section is the startling, eye-popping goal of achieving “a carbon pollution-free electricity sector no later than 2035.” This phrase makes struggling through the jungle of bureaucratic terminology worth it. 2035 might not be too late. The climate catastrophe is dire, but if we stop making it worse by 2035, there’s hope for our species – assuming other countries decide to emulate this goal. And then, equally exciting and hopeful, Biden directs various mucky mucks to make sure to end what has long seemed a permanent feature of our government, namely, fossil fuel subsidies – starting with the budget request for fiscal 2022. Reading these executive orders, one could be forgiven for concluding that maybe 2035 for drastically reduced carbon emissions is doable.

Separately from his executive orders, in other environmentally sensitive actions, Biden asked the senate to approve the amendment to the Montreal Protocol of 1987, already ratified by 113 nations. Trump was letting this die on the vine. This amendment phases out heat-trapping hydroflourocarbons (HFCs). These greenhouse gasses are 1000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, regarding global warming. HFCs are used in air-conditioners and refrigerators, but have other uses too.

Originally promoted as substitutes to ozone layer-depleting chlorofluorocarbons 30 years ago, HFCs clearly have their own problems. According to the New York Times, “thanks to well over $1 billion invested in innovation by American companies, alternatives exist.” The Times estimates that U.S. ratification of this treaty would add 33,000 new manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and have other economic benefits. Overall for the environment, this is a huge deal.

As Biden unravels Trump’s skein of environmental abuse, it’s wise not to lose sight of the tremendous tasks that remain: the climate catastrophe itself, the sixth mass extinction and ubiquitous plastic pollution, for starters. Trump did not cause these. Our economic system, also known as capitalism, did that. Massive, even revolutionary, changes in how the supposedly sacred and very unfree free market works will be required to alter the deadly course we are on. It will take a lot more than two executive orders to cure these ills – or even just to tame the illness, currently raging toward a deadly planetary fever.

One small but noteworthy example: Under Trump, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing endangered species act protections from gray wolves in most of the U.S. This is a lousy idea. It has taken years to get a healthy wolf population back in the wild, and now hunters and ranchers will have a free hand to decimate these animals again. This is not how you rescue an endangered species – and globally there are thousands of endangered species. Biden hasn’t waded into the wolf debate, but what more eloquent if understated way to show that the U.S. government takes its own laws seriously? For if the endangered species act means anything, it means that once we’ve rescued a species, we don’t turn around and endanger it again.

Biden has taken some necessary first steps on the environment, but that’s what they are – first steps. He may not be able to get a fully stocked Green New Deal through a closely divided congress, but he should certainly try to do as much as he can to reverse the planetary poisoning caused by the capitalism this country so stubbornly and dogmatically champions. FDR is his role model. FDR said he created his stupendous New Deal social programs to save capitalism (from itself). So, following in FDR’s gigantic footsteps, Biden will doubtless try to save capitalism for a second time. Whether it is possible to do so this time around, and maintain a livable planet, remains to be seen.

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Humanity has precious time to drastically and uniformly act to reduce carbon emissions and eliminate carbon-intensive economic activity before ecological collapse materializes. However, the struggle presented is not that simple. The challenge also requires providing economic relief for workers and recognizing contradictions in the prevailing economic model that created the climate crisis when undertaking a historic societal transition.

While a handful of elected officials recognize the gravity and push for a Green New Deal (GND) — that rightfully strives to curtail carbon-intensive economic growth — it must also be recognized that the GND is only an initial step. The GND hints at contradictions within the U.S. economy and outlines a transition to alleviate some of these contradictions, yet it is a mere jumping-off point and a framework that leaves questions regarding its implementation.

In sum, the current mode of production and distribution — of private ownership motivated by unlimited growth and profits — is incompatible with ensuring the survival of humanity, serving the common interest, and staving off ecological collapse. To effectively limit the destructive tendencies of a system based on carbon-intensive growth, mitigate economic contradictions, and reverse course from impending ecological collapse, a bold conversation offering implementation with explicit class politics is urgently needed from GND champions.

The Green New Deal, A Symbolic First Step

In 2006, the U.S. Green Party launched the GND Task Force, which aimed to provide a solution to economic inequality, creating sustainable green energy infrastructure, and achieving zero carbon emissions by 2030. While GND proposals have existed for over a decade, specifics vary from politician to politician and ideology to ideology. Yet the commonality shared in proposals is modeled after the New Deal’s ideals of bolstering labor-oriented social programs and protecting workers, and making it “green” through the conversion of energy infrastructure to renewables.

Since the GND’s inception, Green Party candidates Howie Hawkins and Jill Stein ran on the framework in elections from 2010 to 2018. While the Greens became early adopters, for a decade and a half the model for a green transition would stagnate in popular discourse. 15 years after the GND’s genesis and being relegated to the fringes of American political life, the public and some Democratic Party officials began to come around.

Amid the 2018 midterm elections, self-described Democratic Socialist Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez adopted the GND and popularized it, including whipping up a 60 percent favorability rating among the public. After an upset campaign that championed a GND, Ocasio-Cortez teamed up with Senators Ed Markey and Bernie Sanders to introduce identical resolutions into both the House and Senate during the 116th Congress.

The current form is a 14-page resolution that sets out to combat climate change over a “ten-year mobilization”. It can be broken down into two parts. One section espouses a series of climate goals, while the second lays out labor-centered benefits.

The first section, where the “green” in its namesake arises, states the impacts of climate change, citing the fiscal cost of inaction, human tolls like mass migrations, and the reality after the destruction of ecosystems. The section also outlines broad goals the U.S. needs to accomplish to mitigate the impacts of climate disaster, such as becoming completely carbon-neutral by 2050 and achieving “global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030.”

The second section is the New Deal aspect, which recognizes that current economic precarity has created instability for working people. It calls for redistributive, universal measures, like single-payer health care, a federal jobs guarantee, higher wages, and funding education and training for workers.

While it’s a start, it isn’t the end-all-be-all policy to solve impending ecological dystopia that some believe it to be. It is a meaningful first step; yet, it’s just that: a first step.

From a technocratic legislative lens, the GND is a Congressional simple resolution (labeled H. Res. or S. Res.), meaning that it doesn’t fund or create new programs and doesn’t possess specific implementation policies. Although legislation, simple resolutions do not have to be voted on by the opposite chamber of Congress and do not have to be enacted by the executive branch. These types of resolutions merely express the sentiments of either body of the legislature and carry no legally binding weight.

In the context of acting on climate change, the GND leaves out implementation details of how to reach the stated sentiments and doesn’t legally commit the U.S. to its goals. Simply stated, the GND is a symbolic first step that expresses Congressional sentiments for the U.S. to strive for climate goals while protecting workers to accomplish the transition.

The resolution is correct to label climate change as an imminent global threat, create objectives to mitigate catastrophe, recognize the need to protect working people, and hint that energy infrastructure — along with other sectors — should be placed under public ownership. Yet, questions remain regarding how the GND, if advanced into more Congressional support and a legally binding structure, would be crafted and implemented.

GND supporters — Congressional, amongst the public, and media — must begin to look at how to achieve the resolution’s goals and consider the ideological framework of the GND’s implementation. With that said, as the clock ticks down and the urgency to correct climate change draws near, the GND’s future implementation cannot rely on rudderless ideological appeasement to the market.

Fighting Fire With Fire

In a 2019 CNN town hall during the Democratic Primary, climate activist and writer Robert Wood asked Senator Elizabeth Warren — a supporter of the GND — to elaborate on her position on the public ownership of utilities and capitalism’s role in exacerbating climate change.

Wood inquired, “Bernie Sanders has endorsed the idea of the public ownership of utilities, arguing that we can’t adequately solve this [climate] crisis without removing the profit motive from the distribution of essential needs like energy. As president, would you be willing to call out capitalism in this way and advocate for the public ownership of our utilities?”

Warren’s response — steeped in ideology — was unsurprisingly familiar and lukewarm at best, telling Wood, “Gosh, you know, I’m not sure that’s what gets you to the solution.” The Senator continued, highlighting her solution, “But for me, I think the way we get there is we just say, sorry, guys, but by 2035, you’re done. You’re not going to be using any more carbon-based fuels, that gets us to the right place. And if somebody wants to make a profit from building better solar panels and generating better battery storage, I’m not opposed to that.” Senator Warren concluded, “But I just want to be clear. We’ve got to have tough rules that we’re willing to enforce.”

Warren, while oversimplifying her plan, revealed her ideological commitment to the current economic order and aptly deflected from the underlying point in Wood’s question. As Wood gets at, the profit motive and private ownership are contradictory for the production and distribution of essential goods and services that virtually every person uses regularly. Wood was also getting at the notion that capitalism created this crisis and is incapable of serving the public interest.

Warren’s response, although expected, is ideologically revealing and paints an idealistic vision of remedying a never-before-seen global challenge like climate change. The Senator’s response demonstrates the halfhearted incrementalism and the “let’s not rock the boat too much” commitments of many leading liberals through seeking market-place solutions, tougher rules, and public-private partnerships.

If only it were that simple! In the fossil fuel corporations’ eyes, they know what the GND signals: an end to business as usual. It’s against their business model to let it come to fruition, let alone liberals’ tepid implementation vision of marketplace reforms to meet the GND’s principles.

As any corporate executive will tell you, the goal of private industry is to remain competitive, gobble up market share, and ensure the financial health of the corporation. The rules of the privatized market dictate that they must increase profitability and are legally obligated (fiduciary responsibility) to protect the financial health of the corporation. That means fighting against “tougher rules”, “telling them they’re done by 2035”, and eating up competitors that threaten their future.

It is also short-sighted to rely on private interests’ incentive to turn a profit in creating renewable infrastructure and technology. Reliance on the market and profiteers to sort out an existential crisis — one which will determine humanity’s prospects for survival — is irresponsible and untimely.

The ideological devotion to the private market when addressing climate does not recognize an inherent contradiction of the problem. The looming reality faced was created by the very system those like Warren seek to employ to cure it. Essentially, the liberal ideological commitment to solving climate change using the system that created it is like using fire to fight fire.

Though Warren and like-minded liberals who support the GND are right to do so, their ideology fails to produce an implementation solution other than tougher regulations and slowly phasing out carbon-intensive corporations through market-place incentives and disincentives. Many of these solutions will be circumvented due to the immense power of corporate America, which is heavily tied up with fossil fuel corporations and banks via the petrodollar. Power, which has been concentrated because of the economic system, must be confronted.

Proper policy implementation of the GND should reflect climate change’s urgency, the contradictory economic system that gave rise to it, and the concentrated private power within energy infrastructure. Rather than relying on competition and profiteering to solve climate change, meaningful solutions reside in collaboration and protecting the common welfare through publicly accountable institutions.

Crises that threatened the U.S.’s welfare and existence, such as the polio vaccination effort, the Great Depression, or the run-up to World War II required vast sums of public investment and ownership over investments. This seemingly lost ideal of common ownership and protecting public welfare in crisis has been left out of American political life. The long term solution to effectively addressing climate change and easing economic misery lies with an American pastime.

Nationalizing Industry In Crisis, An American Pastime

In a Jacobin piece, author Thomas Hanna lays out a brief history of nationalization in the U.S and asserts that democratizing industry is as American as apple pie. Beginning in World War I, with the nationalization of arms manufacturers and telephone and railroad companies, public ownership of industry has been practiced in U.S. governance for over a century.

While the U.S. is often hailed for its free-market and private enterprise system, in times of crisis — like World War II and the Great Depression — the nationalization of industry and funding labor-oriented social programs is how the U.S. has remained afloat during volatile times. In times of lesser crisis, the nationalization of companies and industries has similarly been practiced to meet production and distribution standards while bringing stability through serving the common interest.

In the post World War I environment, a collapse in the capitalist economy led to a worldwide depression — thrusting millions of people into poverty. To jumpstart the economy and alleviate volatility, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) implemented the New Deal and nationalized key sectors of the economy, including gold and silver reserves, and some energy monopolies. While resources weren’t expropriated due to the Takings Clause (a section under the Fifth Amendment that states “private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation”), the profits generated by the publicly held companies and industries were used to fund anti-poverty programs in the New Deal.

Shortly after the world economy lay in ruins, fascist barbarism began to storm through Europe, creating the conditions for carnage and the deadliest war in human history. During World War II, the U.S. government went on a nationalization spree. To aid the war effort, FDR’s administration put railroads, coal mines, trucking companies, and even department stores under public ownership. By the time Truman was in office, three months before V-J day — the government was nationalizing one plant or company per week.

Nationalization efforts continued throughout the post-war period when steel mills were brought under public ownership during the Korean War. Following suit, in the late 1970s, the government again nationalized railroads and continued placing industry under public ownership into the 1980s after the savings and loans scandal. In the 2000s, the government moved to place banks and car manufacturers under temporary public ownership.

By placing companies and crucial industries under democratic control, although mostly temporary, past U.S. governments ensured production and distribution standards were met to serve the common good and fend off crises caused by a volatile economic system.

Like the Great Depression and World War II, humanity is facing down an unprecedented and even more dire crossroads. To meet urgent ecological and economic security, Washington’s progressive leaders and climate change coalitions must look to the class politics inherent in nationalization to achieve their goals.

Considering the state of routine economic and political U.S. meltdowns, this is not the political moment for technocratic rules, market-place solutions, or first step symbolic Congressional resolutions to solving any crisis, let alone a historic challenge like climate change. The moment deserves more and the people deserve confrontational class politics.

In short, nationalization brings class politics to the forefront and leaders can articulate that implementing the GND through nationalization would: promote cooperation over competition; create public accountability rather than private control by an unelected few; offer solidarity when unity is scarce; restore a public utility to common ownership; and fund programs and launch initiatives of economic empowerment for all working people. By advancing class politics through the nationalization argument, the American public can better understand what they have to gain when the economy and government serves the masses.

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

The rapid rise of Covid-19 has spawned a renaissance in socio-economic thinking about the best way to face the future, as mayors of cities throughout the world search for answers in the face of declining revenues while society demands more urgent help.

Eureka! Amsterdam, the Venice of the North, discovers doughnut economics. With a click of fingers, it abandons the major tenets of the neoliberal brand of capitalism’s insatiable thirst for growth to infinity at any and all costs. This city where capitalism spawned via the Dutch East India Company first issuing shares in 1602 has turned agnostic on 400 years of embedded capitalism.

In the face of a virus that has turned the world to a state of reflection of how to best cope, new ideas bring new hope. After all, the virus has exposed the utter fragility, vast inequity, and incongruity of the engulfing neoliberal machine as conceived under the auspices of Reaganism/Thatcherism over four decades ago. Nowadays, its results are aptly summarized by the universally accepted epithet “The One Percent.”

Meanwhile, Covid-19 has exposed the radical cockeyed dynamics of infinite growth at any and all costs with profits of billions, and even trillions, atop lopsided pyramids of a sick and hungry forlorn bourgeoisie, analogous to late 18^th century France when thousands of aristocrats, holding onto their heads, fled the streets of Paris.

Suddenly, out of the blue, doughnut economics to the rescue, as it levels the playing field, dismantling the wobbly pyramid of growth at any and all costs in favor of learning how to “thrive” rather than grow, and grow, and grow a lot more until ecosystems that support life crumble.

The doughnut economy, in contrast to capitalism, takes its cue from nature. Trees grow to maturity and then thrive for years. Trees do not grow to the top of the sky. Similarly, doughnut economics respects the ecological ceiling by focusing on a reduction of ecological overshoot. It’s a new pathway to a better way of life that blends with nature. At first blush, the Great Doughnut is so appealing that 25% of the world’s economy already has it under consideration as a good substitute for capitalism’s commodification of nature.

Today in central Amsterdam a shopper at a local grocery will find new price tags on potatoes, including 6c extra per kilo for the carbon footprint, 5c extra for the toil farming takes on the ecosystem, and 4c extra as fair pay for workers. It’s the “True-Price Initiative” creating awareness amongst buyers of true ecological costs of products essential to the city’s official adoption, as of April 2020, of doughnut economics.

An all-important aspect of doughnut economics is attention to the needs of all citizens by building a strong interconnected social foundation. For example, with the onset of Covid-19, the city realized that thousands of residents did not have access to PCs needed to connect with society during a lockdown. Instead of dialing up a manufacturer to buy new PCs, the city collected old and broken laptops from residents, hired a company to refurbish, and distributed computers to needy citizens. That’s a prime example of the Great Doughnut at work.

British economist Kate Raworth outlined the theory of doughnut economics in a 2012 paper followed by her 2017 book, Doughnut Economics (Chelsea Green Publishing). It defies traditional economics that she studied at the University of Oxford by focusing on a doughnut symbol of planetary boundaries and social boundaries that define safe and just space for humanity, along with healthy ecosystems, or to put it another way, living harmoniously with nature as opposed to neoliberalism’s indifference and overuse.

According to Ms. Raworth, 20^th century economic thinking is not equipped to deal with the 21^st century reality of a planet on the edge of climate breakdown. Therefore, her theory establishes a “sweet spot” where citizens have everything needed for a good life while respecting the environmental ceiling, avoiding ecological overshoot, like excessive freshwater withdrawals, chemical pollution, and loss of biological diversity to mention only a few.

The doughnut economy is displayed in a visual circular schematic with a green inner circle, which represents a “regenerative and distributive economy that is a safe and just space for humanity” surrounding a list of items that, when in shortfall, need to enter the green doughnut’s “social foundation,” like housing, energy, water, health, income & work, etc. At the outer edge of the doughnut, an “ecological ceiling” lists “ecological overshoots” that threaten the social fabric.

As the world turns, with today’s universality of entrenched capitalism, people in rich countries are living in an ecological overshoot while people in poor countries fall below the social foundation. Thus, both rich and poor are living outside of the regenerative and distributive economy found in the green inner circle of the Great Doughnut.

Amsterdam is working to bring its 872,000 residents into the sweet spot for a good quality of life without putting pressure on the planet beyond nature’s normal rate of sustainability. It’s the Amsterdam Doughnut Coalition as established by 400 locals and orgs within an intertwined network that runs programs at grassroots levels. Thus, the economy sprouts up from ground level rather than dictated from above in lofty boardrooms.

Of more than passing interest, doughnut economics is spreading throughout the world. Copenhagen’s city council is following in Amsterdam’s footsteps. Brussels is following and a city in New Zealand named Dunedin, as well as Nanaimo, British Columbia and Portland, Oregon preparing to roll out their own versions of the doughnut economy. Austin, Texas has the Great Doughnut under consideration.

A sizeable portion (25%) of the world’s economy is already studying what Raworth recognized while studying at Oxford about old school economic supply/demand, efficiency, rationality, and infinite GDP growth but missing a key ingredient known as the web of life. Economists refer to the ecological web of life as an “externality.” Is it really an externality? Such labeling removes the prime source of life from consideration in the fabric of economic development.

Raworth’s theory does not provide for specific policies that must be adopted. That is up to stakeholders to decide on a local basis. In fact, setting benchmarks is the initial step to building a doughnut economy. As for Amsterdam, the city combines doughnut’s goals within a circular economy that reduces, reuses, and recycles materials of consumer goods, building materials, and food products.

In Amsterdam “Policies aim to protect the environment and natural resources, reduce social exclusion and guarantee good living standards for all. Van Doorninck, the deputy mayor, says the doughnut was a revelation. ‘I was brought up in Thatcher times, in Reagan times, with the idea that there’s no alternative to our economic model,’ she says. ‘Reading the doughnut was like, Eureka! There is an alternative! Economics is a social science, not a natural one. It’s invented by people, and it can be changed by people.” (Source: Clara Nugent, Amsterdam Is Embracing a Radical New Economic Theory to Help Save the Environment, Could It Also Replace Capitalism? Time, January 22, 2021)

Of special interest, C40: A Mayors Agenda for a Green and Just Recovery intending to deliver an equitable and sustainable recovery from Covid-19. C40 consists of 96 cities around the world representing 25% of the global economy; it’s a network of megacities. Significantly, C40 has asked Raworth to report on the progress of its doughnut members Amsterdam, Philadelphia, and Portland.

The Great Doughnut overtaking neoliberal capitalism is much more than a simple story. It’s working! It’s brilliant! Yet, the designation doughnut has a peculiar ring that foretells a name change, but maybe not. It’s kinda cute.

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

By the end of Hugo Chávez’s presidency, a vague social contract had come to exist in Venezuela. It was not unlike the social contract which sustained real socialism for many decades, as described by Michael Lebowitz in his book Contradictions of Real Socialism. Both situations involved a vanguard that guaranteed a certain level of welfare to the masses in exchange for their passive support. Importantly, what the masses offered in exchange for receiving material well-being and dignity was support for the government, but not participation. Although participation had been a central principle of the Bolivarian Process embodied in Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, it was gradually sidelined as the first decade of the twenty-first century was coming to a close.

The story of the shelving of participation in Venezuela’s revolutionary process is a little examined and little understood process. Yet it is crucially important. It was for the most part the work of middle cadres, in as much as they systematically undid the grassroots and organic structures in the Bolivarian movement and the PSUV party to protect their own power. This battle against organic structures was a gradual, iterative process. In effect, during the various election campaigns, organic structures of popular power took shape, including the Bolivarian circles formed before Chávez’s election, the 10-member groups that operated in the leadup to the referendum in 2004, and the party “battalions” formed in 2007. Unfortunately, after each of these organizational structures had achieved its short-term goals, the party cadres dissolved them, thereby blocking the formation of grassroots expressions of popular power, only to invent new ones when different tasks emerged.

The overall effect of this iterative process was to erode and eventually rout popular power, which came back weaker after every wave of demobilization. As a result, the above-mentioned tacit social contract was eventually consolidated, involving passive support for the government in elections in return for material well-being. The project underpinned by this arrangement was called “socialist” but in fact it had little to do with real socialist objectives. This is because a socialist project, to be meaningful and lasting, must turn on popular protagonism and the promotion of full human development.

A clear case demonstrating the character of this falsely “socialist” quid pro quo consolidated at the end of the Bolivarian Process’s first decade was the much-celebrated Gran Misión Vivienda Venezuela. This was Chávez’s last major undertaking that achieved concrete results. It was a giant housing project which provided more than 2.5 million houses to needy Venezuelans. Yet it did so without any participation or empowerment of the masses. Beneficiaries got their house keys handed out to them in public events, but neither participated in the conceptualization and planning, nor the realization of the project.

This, then, was the situation and basis of power that Maduro inherited when elected president in 2013. However, it quickly proved impossible to sustain. The falling oil prices in 2014, the ratcheting up of financial attacks on the country, and the US and European sanctions that began in 2015 made the government’s provisions in favor of popular welfare – its half of the contract – impossible to hold up. Paradoxically, however, the US’s attacks on the country, which were most explicit in the cruel oil sanctions, also gave Maduro and his government a way out. The “socialist” welfare train may have been running out of fuel, with people becoming increasingly dissatisfied, but the cover offered by outside attacks allowed Maduro and his team to look for support in another sector. That was the sector made up of the members of the movement, party, and allies who wanted to set up businesses, to initiate and expand capitalist development.

This is exactly what Maduro and his government proceeded to do. Unable to fulfill the existing social contract and at risk of losing popular support, they could now shift most of the blame to outside forces for the economic situation, thereby neutralizing most popular dissent, while seeking additional, new support from an emerging capitalist class.

Was there any other option? The other option would have been to turn to the masses, reinstate popular participation, in this way forging a new, authentically socialist contract with the masses based not on rising material welfare but on revolutionary participation and protagonism. The government and party, of course, perceived this as risky. Such a move would have threatened the consolidated power of middle and upper cadres, but it also shocked against the common sense that tends to pervade the Venezuelan bureaucracy, a common sense that both derives from the past and trickles in from the global capitalist context, making government officials distrust the capacities and rationality of the masses.

In fact, even Chávez, in the latter part of his presidency, came to have the same aversion for risks that Maduro exhibits today. This was nowhere more evident than in Chávez’s policies toward neighboring Colombia. In relation to Colombia, Chávez chose, beginning in 2007-2008, to promote a peace process that would result in the elimination of the 50-year-old FARC guerrilla. Rather than thinking about radicalizing the guerrilla, which could have been done by translating the Bolivarian process’s key early principles of popular participation and protagonism into a different context than the one to which Chávez was accustomed – a context defined by armed conflict – the Venezuelan president wanted the guerrilla to make a soft landing into legal politics. Armed struggle against US imperialism is of course a highly risky business, but in his desire to eliminate it, Chávez seemed to be proposing that a rubber stamp of Pink Tide legal politics might function in the neighboring country. It was preposterous. That model, which was already in danger in Venezuela at the time, could never have even gotten off the ground in the polarized conditions existing in Colombia.

Risk-free politics is virtually a contradiction in terms for the left and it is at best short-lived. This is because the security that one acquires is always a security that involves increased dependence on the dynamic and the forces of capitalism. In the crisis that he faced soon after entering the presidency, Maduro took the path of least resistance and sought to eliminate risks by leaning toward capitalist development. The government’s decision to replace the extant social contract by embracing emergent capitalist sectors – a shift that was done under the cover offered by a brutal imperialist attack – is nowhere more evident than in the ironically-named Anti-blockade law, approved in October of 2020. One would imagine that an anti-blockade law would be about closing ranks with the Venezuelan people to face down the external enemy. The law approved in the National Constituent Assembly, however, is nothing of the sort. It betrays its real purpose in key clauses guaranteeing the possibility of privatizing public enterprises without any accountability to the people.

It is important to point out that the option of pursuing risk-free politics – even if it is a chimera – was not even available to Chávez in the first half decade of his presidency. That has to do with the overall geopolitical context of that time and the lack of powerful allies. When Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution got going in 1999, it was almost alone in the world. For that reason, the only possible support for the movement was the Venezuelan masses themselves. It was this popular bloc, mobilized under Chávez’s charismatic leadership, that faced down a US-dominated world. Its moment of glory was when it successfully defeated the US-backed coup d’état in 2002 and the oil sabotage that followed it. Yet, with the rise of Russia and China as significant counterweights to US power, another option came onto the table. That was the possibility of relying on an emergent capitalist class locally and seeking international support from these counterpowers, while shuffling the Venezuelan masses out of the mix.

Analyzing a historical development with a bad outcome is pointless if one does not examine the paths not chosen, but possibly still available. In Venezuela, the social contract that defined Chávez’s last years – passive masses supporting a government that guaranteed material welfare – is no longer possible. Yet the current government’s turn to seeking support from an emergent capitalist class is not the only option. There is still life and effervescence in the Venezuelan masses. Practices of social solidarity, egalitarian ideals, and a questioning attitude towards leadership have all been part of Venezuelan popular culture over the long run. These traits were fostered, albeit in contradictory ways, during the first decade of Chavismo. Even in the petty trade and barter that have now become means of survival for urban Venezuelans one finds – along with the individualism that private trading necessarily involves – practices of solidarity.  Solidarious attitudes are even more evident in the masses’ survival strategies in relation to health, food, and housing.

Another key focus of social solidarity in Venezuela is the subset of functioning communes, which continue trying to produce under new social relations. These working communes may be relatively few in number, but they are part of a broad-based campesino movement that embodies many of the same values. The trick would be to find ways to enhance all these practices of social solidarity, which represent the true logic of socialism, along with developing the means to translate popular solidarity and cooperation into active political participation. Reviving participation – the road not taken by the Bolivarian process during the last decade – would mark an important, game-changing shift toward authentic socialism, having more to do with human freedom and development and less to do with mere material well-being doled out to passive masses. The latter is not even a possibility under any imaginable regime in Venezuela in the near future.

Conclusion: If the weight of these solidarious practices and organizational forms could grow in the society and they could push toward political expression, it would pressure the leadership to rectify by abandoning its turn towards emergent capitalist sectors. All of this would involve grave risks. However, the path to socialism and human liberation is inconceivable without risky efforts like the armed struggle that once took place in Cuba’s Sierra Maestra and Venezuela’s February 4th uprising, neither of which had especially good odds of succeeding.

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Former EPA chief Gina McCarthy has reportedly been picked as Biden’s domestic climate policy chief. That concerns activists in Flint, Michigan, who say that she failed to address the Flint water crisis. 

Karen Weaver, the former mayor of Flint, said that she was disappointed with the choice.

“I hope she does better with climate control than she did with Flint,” she told MLive-The Flint Journal. 

On Thursday, nine people, including former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, were charged over the crisis. Nick Lyon, Snyder’s health director, and Dr. Eden Wells, Snyder’s chief medical executive, were charged with involuntary manslaughter. Snyder was charged with two misdemeanor counts of willful neglect of duty. But the failure to help the people of Flint reached from the city level all the way to the top of the federal government. In 2014, the city switched water sources to the Flint River to save costs. The water was not treated to reduce corrosion, causing the water to be contaminated with lead. At the same time, bacteria in the water was blamed for an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease. 

McCarthy is preparing to lead a new office of domestic climate policy at the White House, a position that does not require approval from Congress. She wrote in a blog post that she thinks the U.S. should aim for 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035 and a carbon-neutral economy by 2050.

“I will help President-elect Biden turn the promises of his historic climate plan, the strongest we’ve ever seen from any president before him, into progress,” she wrote.

McCarthy became the president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit advocacy group the Natural Resources Defense Council in January 2020. She is a member of the boards of the Energy Foundation, a nonprofit supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy, and Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit that works with investors and companies. She is also a former operating advisor at Pegasus Capital, an asset management firm focusing on sustainability and wellness.

In Flint, activists remember that the EPA was slow to act on warnings about water safety.

“It’s appalling, absolutely appalling. It is a huge injustice to everyone in Flint and everything that we’ve suffered,” activist LeeAnne Walters told NBC25 News.

In 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of the Inspector General found that “management weaknesses” in the local, state and federal government’s responses slowed the response to the crisis. 

According to the report: “While Flint residents were being exposed to lead in drinking water, the federal response was delayed, in part, because the EPA did not establish clear roles and responsibilities, risk assessment procedures, effective communication and proactive oversight tools.”

Emails and internal memos show EPA staffers were aware of high levels of lead in Flint as early as February 2015. According to the Detroit Free Press, the EPA took emergency action on water testing 11 months after Miguel Del Toral, a regional groundwater regulations manager for the EPA, raised concerns internally about lead in the water.

McCarthy said in 2017 in congressional testimony that she had regrets about the process: “In hindsight, we should not have been so trusting of the state for so long,” she said. “We missed the opportunity to quickly get EPA’s concerns on the radar screen. That, I regret.”

In 2016, she told the House Oversight Committee that she herself did not cause the water crisis: “I will take responsibility for not pushing hard enough, but I will not take responsibility for causing this problem. It was not EPA at the helm when this happened,” McCarthy said.

“Say whatever you want about being in the dark about the warning signs,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., told McCarthy at the time. “Even when you did know, you did nothing.”

McCarthy also played a role at Obama’s EPA in minimizing the risks of fracking. In 2015, the agency published a misleading study that concealed the effects of fracking on water. 

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said last month: “Years later, there is a staggering amount of evidence about the risks that fracking and drilling waste pose to human health, our air and water, and to the climate. The science is clear. Gina McCarthy owes it to the communities being harmed by fracking to redeem herself in this new role, and to push for policies that move the country off fossil fuels.”

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

It is possible to be simultaneously unsurprised and jolted by an event. It was one thing to know that the wannabe dictator Donald Trump and his shrinking band were going to pull some demented stunt in a last-ditch attempt to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. It was another thing to watch his frenzied, unmasked, and Confederate flag-carrying minions break into the United States Capitol, forcing House and Senate members and the Vice President to evacuate the congressional chamber while trying to fulfill their formerly routine quadrennial and constitutional duty of certifying the Electoral College victory of the nation’s next president. Some of the marauders came with zip tie handcuffs for taking Congresspersons hostage.

Make no mistake: the bloody attack on the U.S. Capitol – with a death toll of five by Friday afternoon – was the Trump circle’s handiwork. After months of disseminating baseless electoral fraud conspiracies and lending his presence to two previous violent rampages in Washington, Trump sent his Trumpenvolk terrorists over to Capitol Hill. Once the assault began, he refused to condemn it. His first address to the nation after the mayhem broke out threw kerosene on the fire by doubling down on his preposterous claim to have been cheated out of a “landslide” re-election.

The idea behind the attack was certainly to create enough mayhem to “justify” Trump invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring martial law, and canceling the inauguration of Biden. Just how far up and wide the planning of this failed coup went remains to be seen. It was an inside job, not just an outside “protest” that got too “wild.”

Did Trump really think the “wild protest” he called for three weeks ago would succeed in stopping the ascendancy of Joe Biden? Perhaps. The line between fantasy and reality is weak in his delusional mind.

Cable and network news talking heads were shocked and disgusted by the coup attempt but nobody who has followed Trump and Trumpism closely and seriously should have been remotely surprised. I have documented Trump’s proto-fascistic essence and conduct and the cult-like devotion of his most fervent proto-fascistic supporters in two recent books. Trump and his most devoted fans and allies have responded to Biden’s win victory in precisely the ways one would expect white-nationalist fascists to react to an electoral humiliation inflicted largely by non-white voters: with Orwellian denial and violence.

Certainly now the failed putsch ought to shut up the vast swath of Trumpenleft and other failed thinkers who have insisted on denying that Trump and much of his base are fascists. Last Friday’s New York Times included Paul Krugman’s obviously accurate editorial observation that “Donald Trump…is indeed a fascist – an authoritarian willing to use violence to achieve his racial nationalist goals. So are many of his supporters. If you had any doubts, Wednesday’s attack should have ended them.” (Some of us on the officially marginalized Left lost our doubts about that in 2015, when the longtime Birther nut and Central Park Five persecutor Trump declared his presidential candidacy by calling Mexicans rapists and murderers.)

Ideological classification aside, Trump has reacted to Biden’s win just as many of those who knew him from inside his circle and administration warned and foretold. In February 2019, Trump’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen told Congress that Trump would not leave office without violence.  “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump,” Cohen remarked, “I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power.” (That would seem to have been a highly newsworthy comment. And yet I saw one CNN talking head after another ignore Cohen’s warning when Anderson Cooper asked them “what leapt out at you during Cohen’s testimony?” It was a remarkable deletion.)

But you didn’t need inside experience to know what was coming if Trump did not win re-election. As I wrote on CounterPunch nearly two years ago:

“Trump has already repeatedly laid the rhetorical foundation for claiming that a 2020 election loss by him will be illegitimate because of supposed voter fraud. To make matters worse, a reputable poll has shown that most Republicans would support Trump suspending the 2020 presidential election ‘if necessary to guarantee a fair election’…If Trump loses in 2020, he will encourage violence, telling his followers that the vote count is illegitimate. You can take that to Deutsche Bank. Herr Trump and his authoritarian, white-nationalist Amerikaner base pose a real creeping-fascist threat to the last shreds of ‘bourgeois democracy’…”

During the 2020 campaign, Trump refused to promise that he would honor an election outcome that didn’t go his way and repeatedly told voters that he could not possibly lose a fair election. Just a few days before the attack on Congress, the orange-brushed lunatic was caught red-handed in another one of his “perfect calls” – an extraordinary hour-long phone “conversation” in which he feloniously tried to bully Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State into “recalculating” that state’s vote in Trump’s favor.

The threats go back to the previous election. In 2016, Trump made it clear that he wanted blood in the streets if Hillary Clinton won. He intimated that the election was “rigged” against him and that it would have been stolen if he were not declared the winner.

This spring and summer, armed Trumpist-fascist militia men occupied Michigan’s state capital and otherwise menaced Michigan officials in response to the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions. Trump called the assault-weapon terrorists “very good people” and told the state’s Democratic governor to “make a deal” with them.

It’s not for nothing that ten former US Defense Secretaries recently signed an Op-Ed telling U.S. military personnel to stay out of the election and reminding that their duty is to the U.S. Constitution and not to Trump. Last November, six days after the election, Trump ominously fired former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who had incurred the president’s authoritarian wrath by refusing to deploy federal troops to crush the anti-racist George Floyd Rebellion.

The former defense chiefs became especially alarmed when Esper’s hard right successor Christopher Miller recently refused cooperation with Biden transition officials. That is a previously unthinkable development in the histories of American imperialism and U.S. presidential succession.

The former defense secretaries certainly have concerns not just with potential domestic force deployments but with possible reckless Final Days actions abroad. Trump obviously wouldn’t mind seeing a foreign policy crisis arise to give him what he could delusively see as a pretext for declaring a state of emergency and trying to suspend or cancel Biden’s inauguration.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about last Wednesday’s coup attempt was the outrageous ease with which Trump’s thugs overcame security forces and breached the deliberative chamber of Congress. This was impossible without collaboration inside the “national security state.” As Business Insider reported the day after:

The supporters of President Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol on Wednesday to stop the ratification of President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory were attempting a violent coup that multiple European security officials said appeared to have at least tacit support from aspects of the US federal agencies responsible for securing the Capitol complex.

Insider spoke with three officials on Thursday morning: a French police official responsible for public security in a key section of central Paris, and two intelligence officials from NATO countries who directly work in counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations involving the US, terrorism, and Russia…They said the circumstantial evidence available pointed to what would be openly called a coup attempt in any other nation. None were willing to speak on the record because of the dire nature of the subject.

One NATO source set the stage, using terms more commonly used to describe unrest in developing countries. “The defeated president gives a speech to a group of supporters where he tells them he was robbed of the election, denounces his own administration’s members and party as traitors, and tells his supporters to storm the building where the voting is being held,” the NATO intelligence official said.

“The supporters, many dressed in military attire and waving revolutionary-style flags, then storm the building where the federal law-enforcement agencies controlled by the current president do not establish a security cordon, and the protesters quickly overwhelm the last line of police. The president then makes a public statement to the supporters attacking the Capitol that he loves them but doesn’t really tell them to stop,” the official said. “Today I am briefing my government that we believe with a reasonable level of certainty that Donald Trump attempted a coup that failed when the system did not buckle. I can’t believe this happened.”

A law-enforcement official who trains with US forces believes someone interfered with the proper deployment of officers around Congress……It is routine for the Capitol Police to coordinate with the federal Secret Service and the Park Police and local police in Washington, DC, before large demonstrations. The National Guard, commanded by the Department of Defense, is often on standby too. On Wednesday, however, that coordination was late or absent. ‘It’s obvious that large parts of any successful plan were just ignored,” the official said. The official directs public security in a central Paris police district filled with government buildings and tourist sites.

The white supremacist hypocrisy of it all was hard to miss. The National Guard, which was deployed heavily to repress Black Lives Matter protests last summer, failed to assist the Capitol police until two hours after the attack. Millions of Americans who participated in the George Floyd Rebellion last summer can tell stories of violent police state repression inflicted against peaceful civil rights and social justice protesters. (I found myself on the wrong end of gendarmes’ batons and tear gas more than once merely for marching and chanting in orderly fashion against the police murders of Floyd and Brionna Taylor). A Black Lives Matter and “Antifa” assault on the Capitol while Congress certified the re-election of Donald Trump would have been met with overwhelming force including live ammunition leading to dozens if not hundreds of fatalities.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon was concerned about the bad optics of deploying military personnel to protect the Capitol. The Defense Department seemed to have no such worries about doing precisely that during the far less violent George Floyd protests last year.

Videos made available online showed some Capital police officers opening a barrier to permit a group of Trump terrorists advance closer to the Capitol dome. At least one white officer can be seen letting a rioter take a selfie with him inside the Capitol while protesters milled around the building unchecked.

(Police collaboration is also unsurprising. Consistent with their authoritarian personalities and fascist sentiments, white police officers across the nation have been among Trump’s strongest supporters. Many of them were certainly primed to violently suppress urban protests against an election stolen by Trump this fall and winter. The fascist head of the Chicago policeman’s union expressed support for last Wednesday’s coup attempt.)

The nation’s deeply conservative President Elect, a longstanding Wall Street and Pentagon plaything, joined in the soft response. As knuckle dragging Amerikaners were tearing up the Capitol, Biden pathetically asked Trump to “stand up” and call off the assault. He childishly reiterated his Obamanist “optimism” in unity across partisan lines and in America’s continuing progress toward “a more perfect union.”

Trump “stand up” (Biden) for decency? Seriously? The nation and world are in the middle of a deadly pandemic that the malignant president fueled and fanned across the nation, turning the United States into COVID-19’s leading Sanctuary State. As new U.S. coronavirus death records have been set regularly in the aftermath of the election, the fascist beast in the White House has criminally avoided the historic public health crisis while advancing the preposterous election fraud narrative, playing golf, and arranging pardons for war criminals and his favorite cronies. The third post-election proto-fascist Washington rampage he sparked included a coup attempt that led to at least five fatalities.

Sloppy Joe should have demand that Trump stand down, that is, resign immediately. But such a reasonable was never going to issue from the lips of a fascism-appeasing conservative firmly in the Hollow Resistance Clinton-Obama mode, Biden couldn’t begin to utter such a demand.

A frequent keyword from the Democratic media and politics establishment is reconciliation. It’s a dangerous and foolish aspiration. There can and should be no patching up of differences with fascists, whose “grievances” reflect maniacal bitterness over any checks on white supremacy, male supremacy, xenophobia, vengeful nationalism, military barbarism, and eco-cide.

The better word for the Democrats’ approach is appeasement. “And if history teaches us one lesson about dealing with fascists,” Krugman had the decency to note two days ago “it is the futility of appeasement. Giving in to fascists doesn’t pacify them, it just encourages them to go further…So far, the lesson for Trumpist extremists is that they can engage in violent attacks on the core institutions of American [so-called] democracy, and face hardly any consequence. Clearly, they view their exploits as a triumph and will be eager to do more” if they go unpunished.

Numerous administration officials and Republican Senators and Representatives have tried to distance themselves from a fascistic presidency they had long enabled. Their belated resignations and standdowns from Trump’s absurd fraud charge were transparent attempts to cover their complicit asses and save careers. The claims of shock and disgust, as in “we didn’t sign up for this” (Nick Mulvaney) were disingenuous. The attack on the Capitol was the natural outcome of presidential conduct and rhetoric that vicious right-wing Senators like Mitch McConnel (R-KY), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have embraced and encouraged for years. Their and other top Republicans’ claims to be shocked and disgusted by Trump’s mob assault are not to be taken seriously. If a coup had been successfully pulled off – something far beyond the capacity and competence of Trump and his comrades – Hawley, Graham and other Republican elites would be applauding the outcome and gearing up happily for four more years of Trumpism-fascism.

Let us never forget the craven idiocy of the “moderate” Republican US Senator Susan Collins. Collins infamously rationalized her vote against convicting the president on impeachment charges last February by moronically claiming that the tangerine-tinted Antichrist had “learned his lesson.” The opposite was the case: Trump’s “exoneration” told him for the umpteenth time that he could continue to get away with horrific abuses of his power.

We should also never forget that 140 House Republicans and 6 Republican Senators despicably held to their absurd challenge to the Electoral College tally even after the disgusting and deadly assault on Congress.

The Democratic establishment falsely claims that “democracy” survived the failed putsch. This ignores the fact that the United States was a corporate and financial oligarchy subjected to an unelected dictatorship of concentrated wealth and Empire well before Trump’s ascendancy. This pre-existing capitalist-imperialist authoritarianism was critical democracy-delegitimizing and populace-demobilizing context for the rise of Trump and Trumpism-fascism. The radical right danger will survive the eclipse of Trump, congealing perhaps around a more competent and disciplined Dear Leader, set to feed off mass disillusionment with the likely capital- and Constitution-imposed failures of the neoliberal Biden administration and the coming bare majority Democratic Congress.

Meanwhile, nearly half of Republicans polled by YouGov approved the demented attack on the Capitol. A majority of Republicans “blame Biden” for the assault! Those are the people Joe Biden wants to “reach out across the aisle” and join hands with to build “a more perfect union” – this while constructing an administration hostile to progressive Democrats who advocate policies most of the populace supports and that might fascism-proof this nation.

Trump still receives approval from 4 in 10 Americans even after sparking a demented ph

However it all plays out, we on the Left would do well to keep our distance from the liberal charge of “treason” against the supposedly virtuous nation. “In reality,” Refuse Fascism’s co-founder Sunsara Taylor recently wrote me, “it is the nation — the history and roots and ongoing functioning of the system of capitalism-imperialism in the United States, with its roots and foundations in slavery and white supremacy and all the global plunder and exploitation which is its life-source in an ongoing way — that is the SOURCE of this fascism. …Condemning [the Trump coup attempt] as…’treason’…feeds people into the maw of …Biden’s calls for ‘uniting’ and ‘healing’ the country… [and into] seeking some kind of reconciliation.” There is no meaningful reconciliation to be found with those who assault partially democratic institutions and laws and norms under the influence of a malignant world view that combines, in Taylor’s words, “white supremacy, the hatred of women, the glorying in denigrating and torturing immigrants, the hatred for science and facts and masks and vaccines and the media and anything that suggests anything is more important than ‘me, me, me.’”

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

It is easy for progressives to blame the staggering calamity of U.S. COVID-19 deaths solely on Trump. Yes, Donald Trump is a self-serving liar, and his vice president, Mike Pence, as chair of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force and Trump henchman, has blocked life-saving guidance from scientific authorities. There is smoking-gun evidence (some of which I will discuss) that convicts Trump and Pence, but if progressives blame only the Trump administration and not politically-intimidated scientific authorities, they will be guilty of failing to prevent another disastrous response to the next pandemic.

While anti-authoritarian progressives should have expected nothing less from Trump and Pence, cavalier clowns from the theocratic/pre-Enlightenment wing of the corporatocracy, they should have expected more from scientists at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), whose compromising of science was chronicled by ProPublica (“Inside the Fall of the CDC”) and noted by the Center for Infectious Disease and Research Policy (CIDRAP). Both the ProPublica and the CIDRAP reports will be discussed here.

For most of 2020, confused, anxious, and terrified Americans simply have had no idea as to which authority to trust, and such confusion, anxiety, and terror obliterated critical thinking. Now, with the arrival of vaccines—hopefully as effective as claimed—along with other good news that I will report, perhaps some Americans are re-energized to think critically. For those who have regained their strength, the goal of this article is to provide information for critical thinking about the CDC fiasco and the increasingly failed state called the United States—failed if your criteria includes how a society treats its elder citizens (according to the December 20, 2020 AARP Bulletin, the COVID-19 fatality rate in U.S. nursing home/long-term care facilities is 16% compared to the Battle of the Bulge fatality rate of 4%).

First, that piece of good news. Unlike CDC director Robert Redfield (a Trump appointee), CIDRAP director Michael Osterholm, in spite of heavy political pressure, has valiantly NOT made scientific proclamations without scientific evidence; and last November, Osterholm was named to Biden’s 13-member COVID-19 Advisory Board.

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been widespread confusion in the general public concerning scientific truths about stopping its spread. Genuine scientists recognized what was truly known and not known, and those with courage, such as Osterholm, attempted to make this clear. However, because scientific proclamations have had such huge economic implications—which translated into huge political implications—scientific authorities experienced great pressure, and the CDC caved to that pressure. Before discussing that CDC capitulation, some facts:

(1) The United States has, by far, more COVID-19 fatalities than any other nation. As of December 29, 2020, the United States had approximately 335,000 deaths; Brazil was second at 191,000; New Zealand had 25 deaths. On one day alone, December 29, there were 3,725 U.S. COVID-19 deaths, at that time, the highest U.S. daily total. As of December 16, 2020, while there were eight other nations with higher fatality rates than the United States, the U.S. fatality rate of 921 deaths per million was 250% greater than Canada’s rate of 364 deaths per million. New Zealand had a fatality rate of 5 deaths per million. While the Trump slogan may have been “Make America Great Again,” U.S. government policy has resulted in “Made Americans Dead.”

(2) Trump’s only agenda with regard to COVID-19 has been to keep it from derailing the economy, especially the stock market, which he believed would derail his re-election. In November 2020, the Atlantic (“All the President’s Lies About the Coronavirus”) documented over 50 Trump lies in key areas, including the nature of the outbreak, its seriousness, testing, and treatment.

(3) The CDC, pressured by the Trump administration, compromised its scientific mission, resulting in lost respect and credibility for the CDC from scientists inside the CDC and from scientists outside of the CDC.

In ProPublica’s lengthy exposé, “Inside the Fall of the CDC” (October 15, 2020), journalists James Bandler, Patricia Callahan, Sebastian Rotella and Kirsten Berg conclude: “When the next history of the CDC is written, 2020 will emerge as perhaps the darkest chapter in its 74 years, rivaled only by its involvement in the infamous Tuskegee experiment. . .”

The ProPublica story begins with an ugly example of the nature of the Trump administration’s assault on the CDC. Propublica recounts that in mid-May 2020: “the CDC had published its investigation of an outbreak at an Arkansas church that had resulted in four deaths. The agency’s scientific journal recently had detailed a superspreader event in which 52 of the 61 singers at a 2½-hour choir practice developed COVID-19. Two died.”

Jay Butler, the CDC Deputy Director for Infectious Diseases who was directing the CDC’s COVID-19 response, was tasked with crafting CDC guidance for religious organizations’ activities. Butler, Propublica points out, is “an infectious disease specialist with more than three decades of experience . . . . one of the CDC’s elite disease detectives, he’d helped the FBI investigate the anthrax attacks, and he’d led the distribution of vaccines during the H1N1 flu pandemic when demand far outstripped supply.”

Just prior to Memorial Day, Trump publicly insisted that churches reopen and accused Democratic governors of disrespecting houses of worship, which he proclaimed should be deemed as “essential services.” Trump announced that the CDC would “very soon” release safety guidelines for places of worship. Butler’s team rushed to finalize this guidance—recommendations that earlier in April, Trump’s aides had rejected. Butler’s team reviewed “a raft of last-minute edits from the White House,” Propublica reports, and the team rejected those White House edits that conflicted with CDC research, including rejecting a White House suggestion to delete a line in Butler’s team’s guidance that urged congregations to consider suspending or at least decreasing the use of choirs.

After these rejections by Butler’s team of the White House “suggestions,” Mike Pence, chair of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force, made the White House position clear. Propublica recounts: “The next day, a furious call came from the office of the vice president: The White House suggestions were not optional. The CDC’s failure to use them was insubordinate, according to emails at the time.” In sum, 52 of the 61 singers at a 2½-hour choir practice developed COVID-19 with two dying, but the self-identified evangelical Mike Pence declared it to be insubordination should the CDC retain its guidance to consider suspending or at least decreasing the use of choirs.

Sadly, almost immediately, a Butler deputy replaced their team’s guidance with the White House version, and the choir dangers went unmentioned. On the Sunday morning of the Memorial Day weekend, Propublica reports, “Butler, a churchgoer himself, poured his anguish and anger into an email to a few colleagues,” his email reading: “I am very troubled on this Sunday morning that there will be people who will get sick and perhaps die because of what we were forced to do.”

To give you the flavor of the detailed Propublica exposé on the CDC, below are a few quotes from it:

• “A vaunted agency that was once the global gold standard of public health has, with breathtaking speed, become a target of anger, scorn and even pity.”

• “Agency insiders lost faith that CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, a Trump appointee who’d been at the agency only two years, would, or could, hold the line on science.”

• “People interviewed for this story asked to remain anonymous because they feared retaliation against themselves or their agency.”

• “Longtime CDC employees confess that they have lost trust in what their own agency tells the public.”

Not reported in the Propublica exposé is another CDC tragedy, an extremely important CDC flip flop.

On March 18, 2020, the CDC put out the video “Answering 20 Questions about COVID-19,” in which Jay Butler is asked about CDC recommendations regarding cloth masks. He responds (at the 52:12 mark): “CDC does not recommend use of masks in the general community, and that’s not a new recommendation. That’s been a standing recommendation for some time, primarily because there’s not a lot of evidence that there is benefit. We are also concerned about the exposure of hands to the face. . . . Just [an] anecdotal observation—not true scientific data—I’ve watched people in public who are wearing the mask and how often they put their hand to their face to adjust the mask . . . . It really makes me wonder if it actually might have a negative benefit on the risk of infection. . .”

In addition to the lack of evidence for cloth masks’ positive benefits and the possible negative effects of face-touching caused by mask use, there is another hugely important reason why public health officials did not want to recommend them. Specifically, they feared that mask recommendations would result in a false sense of security; in the words of a CIDRAP commentary published on April 1, 2020, “Masks-For-All for COVID-19 Not Based on Sound Data”: “Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection.” This CIDRAP review of the scientific research is authored by Lisa Brosseau and Margaret Sietsema (their mini-bios state: “Dr. Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and professor, retired, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Sietsema is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago”).

On July 16, Brosseau and Sietsema added a statement to their review which began: “The authors and CIDRAP have received requests in recent weeks to remove this article from the CIDRAP website.” CIDRAP director Osterholm refused to be intimidated by these “requests,” and he instead provided Brosseau and Sietsema with an opportunity to respond to criticism; and they made it clear that they are not “anti-maskers,” and that they only were conveying what is known about mask protection. If you are interested in what scientists know and do not know about the protection provided by various types of masks—including N-95 respirators, surgical, and cloth ones—I strongly recommend that you read Brosseau and Sietsema’s careful review.

Prior to the CDC flip flop on cloth mask recommendations, the phrase repeatedly used by public health officials, not just those at CIDRAP, about why they did not recommend such mask use was “a false sense of security.” It was believed that if people were told that cloth masks were protective that—even if they were also told of the greater importance of social distancing (“physical distancing,” notes CIDRAP’s director Michael Osterholm, is the better term)—then many people would be lax about physical distancing.

This nightmare of public health authorities came true. One glaring example was that after the CDC told Americans not to travel on Thanksgiving, many Americans simply blew that recommendation off, and there were airport scenes throughout the nation with everybody masked up awaiting boarding—inches from one another—and most likely majorly spreading the virus.

Between March 18, when Jay Butler told the American people that the CDC does not recommend the use of masks “primarily because there’s not a lot of evidence that there is benefit,” and early April, when the CDC reversed this recommendation, there was no new mask research to justify such a reversal, a fact documented by CIDRAP director Michael Osterholm (more later on this).

To say that Michael Osterholm’s scientific credentials in the areas of infectious diseases and epidemiology are impressive is an understatement (see bio), and the Des Moines Register gives us some insight into the fiber of this Iowa native: “He has described his father as a bullying alcoholic who left the family after Osterholm stood up to him during his senior year of high school.”

Osterholm has a history of accepting unpopularity if that was the cost of saving lives. In 1984, following Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler’s announcement that we would have an HIV vaccine within three years, Osterholm responded to the media, “Until we have a ‘beam me up Scotty machine,’ or some kind of new breakthrough technology, I didn’t understand how this vaccine would work.” Osterholm recalls, “My critical concern was that we couldn’t let our guard down; we had to maintain all the efforts we were promoting to support people not to become infected through their personal choices of behavior.” Soon after Osterholm’s 1984 buzzkilling remarks, he spoke at a meeting in which a group of gay businessmen were in attendance, and he recounts,“When I was asked a question about the prospects for a vaccine, some of them got up and left in a very public display of their disagreement with my answer. Today I sit here in 2020, some 36 years later, and we’re not close to having an HIV vaccine.I take no comfort in having been right about that.”

On June 2, 2020, in Special Episode: Masks and Science, in an interview with Chris Dall (click here for transcript), Osterholm attempts to clear up the mask confusion. Osterholm recounts that on April 3, 2020, the CDC reversed its earlier mask recommendation, with the CDC proclaiming: “In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g. grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.” This “new evidence,” Osterholm explains, was not at all evidence of mask effectiveness but studies demonstrating presymptomatic or asymptomatic transmission. Osterholm explains the following about the CDC flip flop: “The recommendation was published without a single scientific paper or other information provided to support that cloth masks actually provide any respiratory protection. There were seven reports or papers listed as ‘Recent Studies’ that detailed the risk of presymptomatic or asymptomatic transmission. There was nothing about how well such masks protect against virus transmission, particularly from aerosol-related transmission.”

Osterholm could not hide his disappointment and anguish: “Never before in my 45 year career have I seen such a far-reaching public recommendation issued by any governmental agency without a single source of data or information to support it. This is an extremely worrisome precedent of implementing policies not based on science-based data. . . . If these cloth masks do little to reduce virus transmission due in large part to their lack of protection against aerosol inhalation or exhalation, do we not have an obligation to tell the public of this potential limitation? How many cases of COVID-19 will occur when people using cloth masks and not understanding the limitations of their effectiveness participate in activities with others where virus transmission does occur?”

He continued, “I believe this cloth mask recommendation situation represented the other low point in CDC’s response to COVID-19 with the other being the failed testing situation [a major CDC debacle discussed in depth in the Propublica article]. I have talked to close friends and colleagues who work at CDC and who were involved on the periphery with this issue. They universally disagreed with the publication of this recommendation based on the lack of information supporting that cloth masks actually reduced the risk of virus transmission to or from someone wearing a cloth mask.”

Directing listeners to the CDC website, Osterholm noted, “You’ll not find one piece of information supporting that cloth masks are effective in reducing respiratory virus transmission. Ironically, what you will find is that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], an institute that is part of CDC, states on the CDC site the following; ‘A surgical mask does NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection’. . . . And remember that NIOSH is recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on respiratory protection. Frankly, I believe that this issue of CDC recommending the use of cloth masks without any substantial scientific evidence that they provide such protection, and in conflict with their own expertise in NIOSH, has helped create the immense confusion that exists around this issue. In short, I believe that CDC has failed the public by creating this confusion.”

In the 2020 climate of tribal attacks on critically-thinking truth tellers, in order for CIDRAP to survive and continue to disseminate only scientific truths, Osterholm needed that same kind of strength required to stand up to a bullying alcoholic father. He reports, “In all my years in public health, I’ve never experienced this blowback, even with the influenza vaccine or HIV vaccine related issues. We’ve actually had people who’ve contacted funders of CIDRAP, demanding that they defund us, because of my position on cloth masking.” While CIDRAP, unlike the CDC, is not a U.S. governmental institution that has to answer to Trump, its survival within the auspices of the University of Minnesota depends on the funding of various foundations.

Osterholm, Brosseau, and Sietsema make clear that they are not “anti-maskers.” Osterholm repeats that “masks may provide some benefit in reducing the risk of virus transmission.” However, the key word is may, and the critical point is that if in fact there proves to be some mask benefit, “at best it can only be anticipated to be limited.” He regularly notes the following scientific truth: “Distancing remains the most important risk reduction action. . . . I understand why many would argue that some benefit is better than none, but I believe that we must approach this assumption with caution. The messaging that dominates our COVID-19 discussions right now makes it seem that if we are wearing cloth masks you’re not going to infect me and I’m not going to infect you. I worry that many people highly vulnerable to life-threatening COVID-19 will hear this message and make decisions that they otherwise wouldn’t have made about distancing because of an unproven sense of cloth mask security.”

Science and basic math dictated that the life-saving response to COVID-19 should consist in, as it was called in New Zealand, “going early and go hard.” In “Lessons from New Zealand’s COVID-19 Outbreak Response,” published by the prestigious medical journal the Lancet (October 13, 2020), there is no mention of masks; rather it concludes: “The lockdown implemented in New Zealand was remarkable for its stringency and its brevity. . . [relying on] early decisive reactions from health authorities, performant surveillance systems, and targeted testing strategies as much as stringency.” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the New Zealand government took seriously scientific truths; and they implemented policies based on what science told them clearly mattered. Honesty with the pubic by New Zealand governmental and public health authorities provided them with credibility, resulting in New Zealanders’ trust that financial and social sacrifices early on caused by a stringent lockdown would reap great benefits later. Ardern, like Trump, was also up for re-election, but she focused solely on the lives of New Zealanders, who rewarded her for her policies that resulted in New Zealand suffering only 25 COVID-19 deaths. On October 17, 2020, the BBC headline read: “Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party Scores Landslide Win.”

New Zealand authorities, similar to scientists Osterholm, Brosseau, and Sietsema, are not anti-maskers—while studies with poor-to-no science have been used to promote masks, this same lack of science also exists in anti-mask studies, including the most loudly trumpeted one, commonly called DANMASK-19, conducted in Denmark during April and May 2020 (published in November 2020 as “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers”). In DANMASK-19, 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). This was trumpeted by anti-maskers to “prove” that masks have little value. However, as Noah Haber, a leading critic of this study pointed out, “This wasn’t a trial about mask-wearing; it was a trial about messages to wear masks . . . . Any protective effect those masks may have had was dampened by the fact that many of the participants didn’t actually use them: In the end, less than half the people in the intervention group reported having worn the masks as recommended.” (Haber and colleagues registered all their concerns about the study design in September 2020 before the study was published). Science does not proclaim that cloth masks do not work but rather that they may or may not work, and that to the extent that they do work, they may not provide much benefit. In contrast, the science is clear that physical distancing is effective.

Finally, before submitting this article to CounterPunch, I rechecked the CDC website to see if they finally found credible scientific evidence for mask effectiveness. Had an amazing research team actually conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on a large number of subjects in which relevant variables were truly controlled so that the comparison of subject infection rates could provide at least a modicum of evidence concerning mask effectiveness? No, not even close to that.

Specifically, updated on November 20, 2020, the CDC posted Scientific Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2. In the section “Human Studies of Masking and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission,” the CDC did acknowledge: “Data regarding the ‘real-world’ effectiveness of community masking are limited to observational and epidemiological studies.” In other words, they had no RCT studies. Then the CDC described their first—which is likely what they consider their strongest—of five non-RCT studies: “An investigation of a high-exposure event, in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.”

This hair stylist report might be interesting to many in the public, but for scientists, this is closer to an anecdote than a scientific study; and for scientists, anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. Specifically, this is an observational, non-RCT report with two hair stylists in which more than half of their clients are omitted from the results. If you read the author’s report (“Absence of Apparent Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Two Stylists After Exposure at a Hair Salon with a Universal Face Covering Policy), it states: “Overall, 67 (48.2%) clients volunteered to be tested, and 72 (51.8%) refused.” The authors themselves tell us that their study has “at least four limitations”: (1) only a subset of the clients were tested; (2) no information was collected regarding use of other personal protective measures; (3) clients who interacted with the stylists immediately before the stylists became symptomatic were not recruited for contact tracing; and (4) the mode of interaction between stylist and client might have limited the potential for exposure to the virus.

The CDC posting of this study as its top human-study evidence for mask effectiveness, for me, appeared so pathetic that I had a second reaction that was darkly hopeful. Perhaps some terrified CDC scientist—afraid of retaliation but wanting to signal that the CDC’s scientific evidence of cloth mask effectiveness falls somewhere between nada and bupkis—posted this study to both survive and signal the truth that they have nothing, and that everybody should focus on physical distancing. Maybe that CDC employee was doing what Sigmund Freud did in order to be allowed to exit Austria in 1938.

According to Freud’s biographer Ernest Jones (The Life and Works of Sigmund Freud), in order for him to be permitted to leave Austria, the Gestapo demanded that Freud, who was by then world famous, sign a document stating: “I have been treated by the German authorities and particularly by the Gestapo with all the respect and consideration due my scientific reputation, that I could live and work in full freedom, that I could continue to pursue my activities in every way I desired. . .” The clever Freud, gaging the Gestapo’s inability to distinguish between a true compliment and sly sarcasm, told them that he had no compunction about signing the document but asked if he could add this sentence to it: “I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone.”

I wonder if Jay Butler and his team at the CDC, forced by Trump and Pence to delete guidance that could have saved lives, now wish that they would have imitated Freud’s tactic by asking if they could add this sentence to their coerced guidance statement: “I can heartily recommend Donald Trump and Mike Pence to anyone.”

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Burlington, Vermont saw its second snowfall of the 2020-2021 winter on January 2, 2021. The five-inch covering wasn’t much by Vermont standards and it certainly didn’t stop the city from functioning. In fact, it can even be seen as a welcome diversion in these days of quarantine and COVID-19. It did remind me of another snowfall a couple decades ago, though. That was also in Burlington. It was only a few days before the city’s mayoral election and the race was close between the Progressive candidate Peter Clavelle and the GOP incumbent Peter Brownell. Brownell’s failure to clean the streets and sidewalks of snow that day except in Burlington’s wealthier neighborhoods (including where he lived) caused his defeat. It was my introduction to snow politics.

There’s another mayoral election this March in Burlington. It will be forty years since Bernie Sanders won his first term as Burlington’s mayor in 1981. Similar to the dynamics of that year, the current Democratic mayor has proven to be a friend of developers and financiers. His network of associates and advisors is the 2020 version of a good old boys’ network. In other words, it’s not just made up of heterosexual men. His opposition includes a thirty-something Progressive and independent candidate Ali Dieng. It wasn’t more than a couple days after the Progressive candidate Max Tracy received the nomination of the Progressive Party for Burlington’s mayoral race that the local CBS affiliate WCAX-TV (known for its conservative leanings) ran a segment portraying him as too radical. Interspersing their commentary with images from local Black Lives Matter and anti-police brutality protests, the story featured sound bites from liberal city council member Jane Knodell and the consistently conservative GOP politician Kurt Wright. The implication was that Tracy is a far-left radical whose politics are not what Burlington needs in these times. In an earlier story in Vermont’s more liberal Seven Days Vermont newspaper discussing the Progressive Party’s virtual caucus, Tracy was contrasted with his caucus opponent, longtime Progressive Brian Pine. In this article the reporter could find little difference between the two men’s politics, choosing instead to focus on style and approach. Seven Days, too, quoted GOP stalwart Kurt Wright, who more or less revealed his opinion of Tracy, stating that Tracy “is viewed as very, very far left in almost every circumstance….” Current mayor Democrat Weinberger echoed Wright in his speech accepting the Democratic Party nod in his reelection campaign, saying “As the Democratic Party has been establishing itself, both nationally and locally, as a Party committed to people through policy and progress that are based in science, data, and expertise, today’s Burlington Progressive Party has been moving in a different, rigid, ideological direction.” Not only do these remarks deny that Tracy and those to Weinberger’s left also use data, science and expertise but draw different conclusions than the Democrats, they also pretend that the Democrats are beyond ideology when, in reality, their ideology is an ideology that puts landlords, developers and banks ahead of workers, tenants and the poor. Although this piece was written in the early days of the campaign season, the remarks by Weinberger and Wright and the article by Seven Days indicate that the anti-Progressive elements in Burlington are trying to steer the campaign in a direction where perception matters more than fact. Bernie Sanders certainly knows something about that.

During Bernie Sanders’ first campaign for mayor of Burlington (and for the rest of his political life), his opponents attempted to pin a similar label on him. When Sanders first became Mayor in 1981 at thirty-nine years of age, the city of Burlington had been controlled by a good old boys’ network of establishment Democrats nominally led by Gordon Paquette. Their circle of friends were real estate developers and others who saw dollar signs instead of people. Bernie Sanders’ campaign for mayor put people—specifically working people—at the center of the campaign’s conversation. The campaign was hard fought and, in the end, it can be argued that it was the votes of less than a dozen voters who aligned themselves with anarchist and social ecologist Murray Bookchin’s politics that put Sanders over the top. Because of the success of his first term, Sanders was re-elected handily in the next mayoral election. For most of the 1980s his opponents in the Democratic/Republican establishment continued to call him a socialist. At the time it was a label Sanders proudly wore.

Jump ahead forty years to 2021. The city of Burlington has been ruled by Democrats for most of the past nine years. Democrat Miro Weinberger has been mayor since 2012 and only recently did the Progressives take back the majority on the city council. Weinberger, like his predecessor Paquette, is cozy with developers and banks. One of his biggest supporters is Councilperson Joan Shannon, who is a realtor and has made it clear throughout her tenure that she represents the landlord class in Burlington. During Weinberger’s tenure, the cost of housing in Burlington has continued to rise at alarming rates. While it is fair to argue that this would have happened anyhow, my point is that the city has done little to ameliorate this situation. In fact, they have consistently opposed rent control and other potentially helpful legislation. Indeed, I can’t recall if rent control has ever even made it to a council subcommittee. The current charter change proposal supported by the Progressives on the City Council that would require landlords to have just cause to evict tenants has a clause against unreasonable rent hikes. According to local activist Charles Winkleman’s Burlington and Vermont Politics on the Left blog, Shannon is rallying landlords to oppose this change, apparently seeing it as an attempt to sneak rent control into the city. Instead of using political power to ameliorate the rising rents in Burlington, Weinberger and the city establishment continue to argue that building more units will lower rents and costs. However, history proves that building more units does no such thing. Yet, like a bulldozer driven by a blind man, the developers continue to push their agenda and the mayor forges their way. This remains so even after a recent hoodwinking of the developer class by Wall Street players resulting in a shopping mall in Burlington’s downtown being torn down and nothing built in its stead after financing from the multinational financier Brookfield pulled out of the project. Currently, there is a giant pit surrounded by construction fencing at the site.

Meanwhile, like much of the United States, the people of Burlington face crises exacerbated by growing inequality, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and a police department that thinks it runs the city. The solution to these problems does not lie in business as usual. The element of the Progressive Party who appear uneasy with Tracy’s nomination (Clavelle and Knodell are representative of that element) were instrumental in marrying the Progressives to the Vermont Democratic Party. It was a marriage that saw the Progressives as the abused spouse afraid to leave the relationship. It was also their leadership that helped create the current situation. The need for a different approach is apparent. After years of compromise with big business interests and other wrong turns, the Progressive Party has a chance to reassert itself as the party of the people. Flawed moves like that by the 2006-2012 Progressive administration of Bob Kiss to bring the arms manufacturer Lockheed into a public-private partnership with Burlington might even be forgiven, if not forgotten. Of course, the infrastructures—economic and otherwise—put in place to support these various predations are not going to dissemble merely because the mayor is not beholden to developers and banks. The power of the latter is great and protected by the legislation it helps write. At the same time, the power of people can be determined. Occasionally, it even wins. The proposed charter changes that will protect tenants and put more community control over the police department are representative of Tracy’s politics. At the same time, these changes are already fiercely opposed by those whose power they challenge. The need for the changes is obvious by the fact they have made it to the ballot with more public input and support than I can remember in the past thirty years. Tracy’s support for these issues—which will upend the way things are run should they pass—is why he’s been painted as a far-left ideologue. The fact that his candidacy represents how popular these changes actually are will be dismissed by his opponents.

In a similar manner, the other charter change supported by Tracy and the Progressives would give the city’s residents and elected officials more say in the way the police department is run. Like many municipalities in the United States, the Burlington Police Department is mostly immune from oversight outside the department. What this means is that officers who use excessive force and otherwise violate accepted codes of conduct cannot be dismissed from their jobs by non-police officials. Furthermore, any complaints about their performance on the job can only be reviewed in-house. This has created a situation where police can act with impunity and little fear of serious repercussions. The proposed charter changes would change this, making the police department and its employees subject to civilian review while giving the Mayor and City Council more power in the hiring and firing of police officers. Like similar proposals in other cities, this charter change is opposed by the police and their union (along with various pro-police groups.) As the mayoral campaign heats up, one can be sure these elements will become more vocal in their opposition. Various monied interests will amplify it. The Tracy campaign will have to knock on lots of doors to overcome the rhetoric from that corner.

Although I was not living in Vermont in the 1980s, one thing I quickly learned when I did move here in 1992 was that even when Bernie was in the Mayor’s office, the power of the monied interests in Burlington never really ebbed. Many of the achievements Sanders is credited with—the public waterfront, the housing trust programs—would not exist if it weren’t for the doggedness of Burlington residents who had no reason to compromise with banks or developers. They had no skin in the game, no power to lose, unlike the men and women in office. They had only their lives and the well-being of their families to think of. Even when Bernie might have considered backing down and letting developers build right on the lake as a bargaining chip for some other program, these citizens kept the pressure on. It was only in later years under the Clavelle and Kiss administrations that the Progressives gave in to the private interests wanting to build closer to the lake. I remain convinced that if enough Burlington residents had opposed that development, the waterfront would continue to be free of shops, condos and restaurants. It’s as if the potential represented by the 1980s Progressive city governments fell to the false charms of neoliberal capital. Instead of coming up with radical alternatives to the privatization of public space represented by the development on the waterfront, City Hall accepted the options offered by the forces of capital as the only possibilities. This approach assumes that capitalism will solve the problems it creates. That is an assumption that does not stand.

Max Tracy has been painted by his opponents as an ideologue. This implies that he is unwilling to compromise. A fairer and more honest definition would say that it means he has certain principles he will not forsake. Over the years, I have discovered that all too often the powerful in our world define compromise as surrendering to them. In Vermont and elsewhere, it’s grown increasingly clear that accepting surrender as compromise forces politicians to betray their constituents and their ideals. As the political trajectory of Bernie Sanders makes clear, this happens even to those who once identified as radical, if not revolutionary. It’s obvious that a politician must consider their ability to get elected when they make political decisions. In the case of leftists running for office, this means deflecting and ignoring everyone to your right—mainstream Democrats, right-wingers, mainstream and right-wing media, etc. Sanders weathered such attacks as mayor of Burlington, even though some of his positions changed once he sought higher office. His administration also developed programs that did what they were supposed to do; they helped working people have better lives. It is those programs which won his argument against his opponents.

Many of those programs are no longer what they were intended to be. Some do not even exist. Monied interests and the politicians they support have manipulated these programs to work for them and not for those the programs were originally intended for. This is part of the reason poverty is on the increase in Burlington: programs designed to ameliorate said poverty no longer work. Instead of lamenting this, there needs to be a way to resolve it with that reality in mind. A radical vision is required. Bernie Sanders and the Progressives had such a vision in the 1980s. The fact that today’s political successors to the long-ago Paquette administration and the region’s conservative media are painting candidate Max Tracy with the same labels Bernie Sanders was painted with in 1981 means Tracy must be doing something right.

The post Burlington, Vermont, Harbinger of Change? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

On a balmy evening in November, a somber, slow-moving 68-year-old man removed his wide-brimmed cowboy hat and placed it over his heart. Moments earlier, Karl Gleim had laid a wreath in front of the most famous building in Texas. To Gleim, the wreath laying was a sacred act, one the retired state worker has participated […]

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Photo Source Capt. Thomas Cieslak – CC BY 2.0

U.S. intelligence agencies and corporations have pushed back against the so-called Pink Tide, the coming to power of socialistic governments in Central and South America. Examples include: the slow-burning attempt to overthrow Venezuela’s President; Nicolás Maduro; the initially successful soft coup in Bolivia against President Evo Morales; and the constitutional crises that removed Presidents Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil.

In 2009, the Obama administration (2009-17) backed a coup against President Manuel Zelaya. Since then, Honduras has endured a decline in its living standards and democratic institutions. The return of 1980s-style death squads operating against working people in the interests of U.S. corporations has contributed to the refugee-migrant flow to the United States and to the rise of racist politics.

EMPIRES: FROM THE SPANISH TO THE AMERICAN

Honduras (pop. 9.5 million) is surrounded by Guatemala and Belize in the north, El Salvador in the west, and Nicaragua in the south. It has a small western coast on the Pacific Ocean and an extensive coastline on the Caribbean Sea in the Atlantic. Nine out of 10 Hondurans are Indo-European (mestizo). GDP is <$25bn and over 60 percent of the people live in poverty: one in five in extreme poverty.

Honduras gained independence from Spain in 1821, before being annexed to the Mexican Empire. Hondurans have endured some 300 rebellions, civil wars, and/or changes of government; more than half of which occurred in the 20^th century. Writing in 1998, the Clinton White House acknowledged that Honduras’s “agriculturally based economy came to be dominated by U.S. companies that established vast banana plantations along the north coast.”

The significant U.S. military presence began in the 1930s, with the establishment of an air force and military assistance program. The Clinton White House also noted that the founder of the National Party, Tiburcio Carías Andino (1876-1969), had “ties to dictators in neighboring countries and to U.S. banana companies [which] helped him maintain power until 1948.”

The C.I.A. notes that dictator Carías’s repression of Liberals would make those Liberals “turn to conspiracy and [provoke] attempts to foment revolution, which would render them much more susceptible to Communist infiltration and control.” The Agency said that in so-called emerging democracies: “The opportunities for Communist penetration of a repressed and conspiratorial organization are much greater than in a freely functioning political party.” So, for certain C.I.A. analysts, “liberal democracy” is a buffer against dictatorships that legitimize genuinely left-wing oppositional groups. The C.I.A. cites the case of Guatemala in which “a strong dictatorship prior to 1944 did not prevent Communist activity which led after the dictator’s fall, to the establishment of a pro-Communist government.”

REDS UNDER THE BED

To understand the thinking behind the U.S.-backed death squads, it is worth looking at some partly-declassified C.I.A. material on early-Cold War planning. The paranoia was such that each plantation laborer was potentially a Soviet asset hiding in the fruit field. These subversives could be ready, at any moment, to strike against U.S. companies and the nascent American Empire.

In line with some strategists’ conditional preferences for “liberal democracies,” Honduras has the façade of voter choice, with two main parties controlled by the military. After the Second World War, U.S. policy exploited Honduras as a giant military base from which left-wing or suspected “communist” movements in neighboring countries could be countered. In 1954, for instance, Honduras was used as a base for the C.I.A.’s operation PBSuccess to overthrow Guatemala’s President, Jacobo Árbenz (1913-71).

Writing in ‘54, the C.I.A. said that the Liberal Party of Honduras “has the support of the majority of the Honduran voters. Much of its support comes from the lower classes.” The Agency also believed that the banned Communist Party of Honduras planned to infiltrate the Liberals to nudge them further left. But an Agency document notes that “there may be fewer than 100” militant Communists in Honduras and there were “perhaps another 300 sympathizers.”

The document also notes: “The organization of a Honduran Communist Party has never been conclusively established,” though the C.I.A. thought that the small Revolutionary Democratic Party of Honduras “might have been a front.” The Agency also believed that Communists were behind the Workers’ Coordinating Committee that led strikes of 40,000 laborers against the U.S.-owned United Fruit and Standard Fruit Companies, which the Agency acknowledges “dominate[d] the economy of the region.” In the same breath, the C.I.A. also says that the Communists “lost control of the workers,” post-strike.

A PROXY AGAINST NICARAGUA

A U.S. military report states that “[c]onducting joint exercises with the Honduran military has a long history dating back to 1965.” By 1975, U.S. military helicopters operating in Honduras at Catacamas, a village in the east, assisted “logistical support of counterinsurgency operations,” according to the CIA. These machines aided the Honduran forces in their skirmishes against pro-Castro elements from Nicaragua operating along the Patuca River in the south of Honduras. By the mid-1990s, there were at least 30 helicopters operating in Honduras.

In 1979, the National Sandinista Liberation Front (Sandinistas) came to power in Nicaragua, deposing and later assassinating the U.S.-backed dictator, Anastasio Somoza Debayle (1925-80). For the Reagan administration (1981-89), Honduras was a proxy against the defiant Nicaragua.

The U.S. Army War College wrote at the time: “President Reagan has clearly expressed our national commitment to combating low intensity conflict in developing countries.” It says that “The responsibility now falls upon the Department of State and the Department of Defense to develop plans and doctrine for meeting this requirement.” The same document confirms that the U.S. Army Special Operations Forces (SOF), the 18^th Airborne Corps, was sent to Honduras. “Mobile Training Teams (MTT) were dispatched to train Honduran soldiers in small unit tactics, helicopter maintenance and air operations, and to establish the Regional Military Training Center near Trujillo and Puerto Castilla,” both on the eastern coast.

A SOUTHCOM document dates significant U.S. military assistance to Honduras to the 1980s. It notes the effect of public pressure on U.S. policy, highlighting: “a general lack of appetite among the American public to see U.S. forces committed in the wake of the Vietnam War [which] resulted in strict parameters that limited the scope of military involvement in Central America.”

According to SOUTHCOM, the Regional Military Training Center was designed “to train friendly countries in basic counterinsurgency tactics.” President Reagan wanted to smash the Sandinistas, but “the executive branch’s hands were tied by the 1984 passage of the Boland Amendment [to the Defense Appropriations Act], banning the use of U.S. military aid to be given to the Contras,” the anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua. As a result, “the strong and sudden focus instead on training, and arguably by proxy, the establishment of [Joint Task Force-Bravo],” an elite military unit assigned a “counter-communist mission.”

The Green Berets trained the contras from bases in Honduras, “accompanying them on missions into Nicaragua.” The North American Congress on Latin America noted at the time that “Military planes flying out of Honduras are coordinated by a laser navigation system, and contras operating inside Nicaragua are receiving night supply drops from C-130s using the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System,” first used in Vietnam and operational only to a few personnel. “The CIA, operating out of Air Force bases in the United States, hires pilots for the hazardous sorties at $30,000 per mission.” The report notes that troops from El Salvador “were undergoing U.S. training every day of the year, in Honduras, the United States and the new basic training center at La Union,” in the north.

SPECIAL UNITS AND ANTI-COMMUNISTS

The U.S. also launched psychological operations against domestic leftism in Honduras. This involved morphing a special police unit into a military intelligence squad guilty of kidnap, torture, and murder: Battalion 316. Inducing a climate of fear in workers, union leaders, intellectuals, and human rights lawyers is way of ensuring that progressive ideas like good healthcare, free education, and decent living standards don’t take root.

In 1963, the Fuerza de Seguridad Pública (FUSEP, Public Security Force) was set up as a branch of the military. During the early-‘80s, FUSEP commanded the National Directorate of Investigations, regular national police units, and National Special Units, “which provided technical support to the arms interdiction program,” according to the CIA, in which “material from Nicaragua passed through Honduras to guerrillas in El Salvador.” The National Directorate of Investigations ran the secret Honduran Anti-Communist Liberation Army (ELACH, 1980-84), described by the C.I.A. as “a rightist paramilitary organization which conducted operations against Honduran leftists.”

The C.I.A. repeats allegations that “ELACH’s operations included surveillance, kidnappings, interrogation under duress, and execution of prisoners who were Honduran revolutionaries.” ELACH worked in cooperation with the Special Unit of FUSEP. “The mission of the Unit was essentially … to combat both domestic and regional subversive movements operating in and through Honduras.” The C.I.A. also notes that “this included penetrating various organizations such as the Honduran Communist Party, the Central American Regional Trotskyite Party, and the Popular Revolutionary Forces-Lorenzo Zelaya (FPR-LZ) Marxist terrorist organization.”

Gustavo Adolfo Álvarez (1937-89), future head of the Honduran Armed Forces, told U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s Honduras Ambassador, Jack Binns, that their forces would use “extra-legal means” to destroy communists. Binns wrote in a confidential cable: “I am deeply concerned at increasing evidence of officially sponsored/sanctioned assassinations of political and criminal targets, which clearly indicate [Government of Honduras] repression has built up a head of steam much faster than we had anticipated.” But U.S. doctrine shifted under President Reagan. Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Thomas O. Enders, told Binns not to send such material to the State Department for fear of leakage. Enders himself said of human rights in Honduras: “the Reagan administration had broader interests.”

Under Reagan, John Negroponte replaced Binns at the U.S. Embassy in the capital Tegucigalpa, from where many C.I.A. agents operated. In 1981, secret briefings informed Negroponte that “[Government of Honduras] security forces have begun to resort to extralegal tactics — disappearances and, apparently, physical eliminations to control a perceived subversive threat.” Rick Chidster, a junior political officer at the U.S. Embassy was ordered by superiors in 1982 to remove references to Honduran military abuses from his annual human rights report prepared for Congress.

THE MAKING OF BATTALION-316

In March 1981, Reagan authorized the expansion of covert operations to “provide all forms of training, equipment, and related assistance to cooperating governments throughout Central America in order counter foreign-sponsored subversion and terrorism.” Documents obtained by The Baltimore Sun the reveal that from 1981, the U.S. provided funds for Argentine counterinsurgency experts to train anti-Communists in Honduras; many of whom had, themselves, been trained by the U.S. in earlier years. At a camp in Lepaterique, in western Honduras, Argentine killers under U.S. supervision trained their Honduran counterparts.

Oscar Álvarez, a former Honduran Special Forces officer and diplomat trained by the U.S., said: “The Argentines came in first, and they taught how to disappear people.” With training and equipment, such as hidden cameras and phone bugging technology, U.S. agents “made them more efficient.” The U.S.-trained Chief of Staff, Gen. José Bueso Rosa, says: “We were not specialists in intelligence, in gathering information, so the United States offered to help us organize a special unit.” Between 1982 and 1984, the aforementioned Gen. Álvarez headed the Armed Forces. In 1983, Reagan awarded him the Legion of Merit for “encouraging the success of democratic processes in Honduras.” When C.I.A. Station Chief, Donald Winters, adopted a child, he asked Álvarez to be the godfather.

After WWII, the U.S. Army established, in the Panama Canal Zone, a Latin American Training Center-Ground Division at Fort Amador, later renamed the U.S. Army School of the Americas and moved to Fort Benning, Georgia. Now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, the C.I.A.’s Phoenix Program in Vietnam and its MK-ULTRA mind-torture programs influenced the Honduras curriculum at the School.

In 1983, the U.S. military participated in Strategic Military Seminar with the Honduran Armed Forces, at which it was decided that FUSEP would be transformed from a police force into a military intelligence unit. “The purpose of this change,” says the C.I.A., “was to improve coordination and improve control.” It also aimed “To make available greater personnel, resources, and to integrate the intel production.” In 1984, the Special Unit was placed under the command of the Military Intelligence Division and renamed the 316^th Battalion, at which point “it continued to provide technical support to the arms interdiction program” in neighboring countries.

A C.I.A. officer based in the U.S. Embassy is known to have visited the Military Industries jail: one of Battalion 316’s torture chambers in which victims were bound, beaten, electrocuted, raped, and poisoned. Battalion torturer, José Barrera, says: “They always asked to be killed … Torture is worse than death.” Battalion 316 officer, José Valle, explained surveillance methods: “We would follow a person for four to six days. See their daily routes from the moment they leave the house. What kind of transportation they use. The streets they go on.” Men in black ski masks would bundle the victim into a vehicle with dark-tinted windows and no license plates.

Under Lt. Col. Alonso Villeda, the Battalion was disbanded and replaced in 1987 with a Counterintelligence Division of the Honduran Armed Forces. Led by the Chief of Staff for Intelligence (C-2), it absorbed the Battalion’s personnel, units, analysis centers, and functions.

In 1988, Richard Stolz, then-U.S. Deputy Director for Operations, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in secret hearings that C.I.A. officers ran courses and taught psychological torture. “The course consisted of three weeks of classroom instruction followed by two weeks of practical exercises, which included the questioning of actual prisoners by the students.” Former Ambassador Binns says: “I think it is an example of the pathology of foreign policy.” In response to the allegations, which he denied, former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Elliott Abrams, replied: “A human rights policy is not supposed to make you feel good.”

Between 1982 and 1993, the U.S. taxpayer gave half a billion dollars in military “aid” to Honduras. By 1990, 184 people had “disappeared,” according to President Manuel Zelaya, who in 2008 intimated that he would reopen cases of the disappeared.

THE ZELAYA COUP

After centuries of struggle, Hondurans elected a President who raised living standards through wealth redistribution. Winner of the 2005 Presidential elections, Manuel Zelaya of the Liberal Party’s Movimiento Esperanza Liberal faction increased the minimum wage, provided free education to children, subsidised small farmers, and provided free electricity to the country’s poorest. Zelaya countered media monopoly propaganda by imposing minimum airtime for government broadcasts and allied with America’s regional enemies via the proposed ALBA trading bloc.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported at the time that “analysts” reckoned Zelaya’s move “runs the risk of jeopardizing the traditionally close state of relations with the United States.” The CRS also bemoaned Zelaya delaying the accreditation of the U.S. Ambassador, Hugo Llorens, “to show solidarity with Bolivia in its diplomatic spat with the United States in which Bolivia expelled the U.S. Ambassador.”

Because Zeyala did not have enough Congressional representatives to agree to his plan, he attempted to expand democracy by holding a referendum on constitutional changes. Both the lower and Supreme Courts agreed to the opposition parties blocking the referendum. In defiance of the courts, Zelaya ordered the military to help with election logistics, an order refused by the head of the Armed Forces, Gen. Romeo Vásquez, who later claimed that Zelaya had dismissed him, which Zelaya denies. Using pro-Zelaya demonstrations as a pretext for taking to the streets, the military mobilized and, in June 2009, the Supreme Court authorized Zelaya’s capture, after which he was exiled to Costa Rica.

In the book Hard Choices, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s ghostwriters, with her approval, refer to Latin America as the U.S.’s “backyard” and to Zelaya as “a throwback to the caricature of a Central American strongman, with his white cowboy hat, dark black mustache, and fondness for Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro” (p. 222). The publishers omitted from the paperback edition Clinton’s role in the coup: “We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras” (plus the usual boilerplate about democracy promotion.)

Decree PCM-M-030-2009 ordered the election be held during a state of emergency. The peaceful, pro-Zelaya groups, La Resistencia and Frente Hondureña de Resistencia Popular, were targeted under Anti-Terror Laws. The right-wing Porfirio Lobo was elected with over 50 percent of the vote in a fake 60 percent turnout (later revised to 49 percent). U.S. President Obama described this as “a restoration of democratic practices and a commitment to reconciliation that gives us great hope.” Hope and change for Honduras came in the form of economic changes benefitting U.S. corporations:

The U.S. State Department notes: “Many of the approximately 200 U.S. companies that operate in Honduras take advantage of protections available in the Central American and Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement.” Note the inadvertent acknowledgement that “free trade” is actually protection for U.S. corporations. The State Department also notes: “The Honduran government is generally open to foreign investment. Low labor costs, proximity to the U.S. market, and the large Caribbean port of Puerto Cortes make Honduras attractive to investors.”

Four years into Zelaya’s overthrow, unemployment jumped from 35.5 percent to 56.4 percent. In 2014, Honduras signed an agreement with the International Monetary Fund for a $189m loan. The Center for Economic and Policy Research states: “Honduran authorities agreed to implement fiscal consolidation… including privatizations, pension reforms and public sector layoffs.” The Congressional Research Service states: “President Juan Orlando Hernández of the conservative National Party was inaugurated to a second four-year term in January 2018. He lacks legitimacy among many Hondurans, however, due to allegations that his 2017 reelection was unconstitutional and marred by fraud.”

RETURN OF THE DEATH SQUADS

Since the coup, the U.S. has expanded its military bases in Honduras from 10 to 13. U.S. “aid” funds the Honduran National Police, whose long-time Director, Juan Carlos Bonilla, was trained at the School of the Americas. Atrocities against Hondurans increased under the U.S. favorite, President Hernández, who vowed to “put a soldier on every corner.” SOUTHCOM worked under Obama’s Central America Regional Security Initiative, which supported Operation Morazán: a program to integrate Honduras’s Armed Forces with its domestic policing units. With SOUTHCOM funding, the 250-person Special Response Security Unit (TIGRES) was established near Lepaterique. The TIGRES are trained by the U.S. Green Berets or 7^th Special Forces Group (Airborne) and described by the U.S. Army War College as a “paramilitary police force.”

The cover for setting up a military police force is countering narco- and human-traffickers, but the record shows that left-wing civilians are targeted for death and intimidation. To crush the pro-Zelaya, pro-democracy movements Operation Morazán, according to the U.S. Army War College, included the creation of the Military Police of Public Order (PMOP), whose members must have served at least one year in the Armed Forces. By January 2018, the PMOP consisted of 4,500 personnel in 10 battalions across every region of Honduras, and had murdered at least 21 street protestors.

Berta Cáceres co-founded the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. One of the Organization’s missions was resisting the Desarrollos Energéticos (DESA) corporation’s Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam on the Gualcarque River, which is sacred to the Lenca people. DESA hired a gang, later convicted of murdering Cáceres. They included the U.S.-trained Maj. Mariano Díaz Chávez and Lt. Douglas Geovanny Bustillo, himself head of security at DESA. The company’s director, David Castillo, also a U.S.-trained ex-military intelligence officer, is alleged to have colluded with the killers. The TIGRE forces oversaw the dam’s construction site.

Between 2010 and 2016, as U.S. “aid” and training continued to flow, over 120 environmental activists were murdered by hitmen, gangs, police, and the military for opposing illegal logging and mining. Others have been intimidated. In 2014, for instance, a year after the murder of three Matute people by gangs linked to a mining operation, the children of the indigenous Tolupan leader, Santos Córdoba, were threatened at gunpoint by the U.S.-trained, ex-Army General, Filánder Uclés, and his bodyguards.

Home to the Regional Military Training Center, Bajo Aguán is a low-lying region in the east, whose farmers have battled land privatization since the early-1990s. After Zelaya was deposed, crimes against the peoples of the region increased. Rights groups signed a letter to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who facilitated U.S. aid to Honduras, stating: “Forty-five people associated with peasant organizations have been killed” between September 2009 and February 2012. A joint military-police project, Operation Xatruch II in 2012, led to the deaths of “nine peasant organization members, including two principal leaders.” One 17-year-old son of a peasant organizer was kidnapped, tortured, and threatened with being burned alive. Lawfare is also used, with over 160 small farmers in the area subject to frivolous legal proceedings.

“BACK TO THE PAST”

In the 1980s, Tomás Nativí, co-founder of the People’s Revolutionary Union, was “disappeared” by U.S.-backed death squads. Nativí’s wife, Bertha Oliva, founded of the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras to fight for justice for those murdered between 1979 and 1989. She told The Intercept that the recent killings and restructuring of the so-called security state is “like going back to the past.”

The iron-fist of Empire in the service of capitalism never loosens its grip. The names and command structures of U.S.-backed military units in Honduras have changed over the last four decades, but their goal remains the same.

The post The Evolution of U.S.-Backed Death Squads in Honduras appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

The Bexar County coordinator for the Texas National Movement, Karl Gleim, poses in front of the Alamo Monument after the monthly wreath laying in San Antonio, Texas. Alexander Thompson/Reporting Texas

On a balmy evening in November, a somber, slow-moving 68-year-old man removed his wide-brimmed cowboy hat and placed it over his heart. Moments earlier, Karl Gleim had laid a wreath in front of the most famous building in Texas. To Gleim, the wreath laying was a sacred act, one the retired state worker has participated in monthly for the last three years as a member of the Texas Nationalist Movement.

Under the guise of making the Alamo more visitor-friendly and inclusive, officials want to erase the Battle of the Alamo from the minds of future generations, Gleim said. The San Antonio City Council and George P. Bush, Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, want to turn the Shrine of Texas Liberty, Gleim said, “into a United Nations-run, progressive lesson on the evils of Anglo imperialism.”

Proponents of the Alamo redevelopment plan—which the City of San Antonio and the Texas General Land Office agreed to in 2018—say Gleim and likeminded Texans are misinformed.

“They say I’m trying to erase Anglo-Saxon history, but we’re not,” San Antonio City Councilman Roberto Treviño said. “The full story of the Alamo hasn’t always been told. For too long many Mexican-Americans have felt disconnected and victimized by the story.”

The battle over how to redevelop the Alamo and remember the site’s history has provoked death threats and emerged as a cause célèbre among Texas’s network of grassroots conservatives, some of whom believe Bush, whose mother is from Mexico, planned to erect a statue of Mexican dictator Santa Anna at the Alamo. Bush called the rumor “patently false” and “flat out racist.”

The fight is a flashpoint in the national conflagration about whose version of history we should officially sanction. It’s a fight over how to honor, if at all, men who putatively fought for liberty, yet enslaved and killed people of color.

At the Alamo in 1836, Lt. Col. William Travis commanded a group of about 190 men—mostly Anglo settlers of what was then the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas. The group included Davey Crockett, the most famous American in the world at the time, and Jim Bowie, American folk hero, famed knife fighter, and slave trader. They faced off against at least 1,500 Mexicans under the command of Santa Anna. They fought to the death.

“The men died,” Gleim said, “defending the most Texan of ideals—liberty and freedom.” These ideals, he added, are again under vicious attack by those Gleim sees as wanting to rewrite history.

Conservative Texans like Gleim are not standing down.

In December 2019, heavily-armed activists gathered in Alamo Plaza to protest the relocation of the Alamo Cenotaph, a 60-foot tall marble statute erected in 1939 to honor the Alamo defenders. Moving the Cenotaph 500 feet south, city officials say, is essential to redeveloping in a way that reflects the site’s 300 years of cultural history. The Alamo was founded as a Spanish mission in the early 18^th century and was an important site to Native Americans. The Cenotaph overpowers the area, officials argue, and represents only one moment in history.

In May 2020, dozens of self-styled modern-day Alamo defenders—many with weapons at the ready—again made a show of force at the site. The day before, someone had written “[down with] white supremacy,” and “[down with] the ALAMO” in red spray paint on the Cenotaph.

And in September 2020, dozens of Texans—many members of a group called This is Texas Freedom Force—offered fiery testimony as the Texas Historical Commission debated moving the Cenotaph. The commission denied the city of San Antonio’s request to do so.

Prominent state politicians—including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick—have proclaimed their opposition to changing the Alamo in any way that would take the focus off the 1836 battle. Gleim appreciates the support, but he is not convinced his side will win.

Nevertheless, like the Alamo defenders in 1836, Gleim told me, “Texas patriots have crossed a line in the sand and are prepared to take a stand for freedom.”

Coordinator Karl Gleim places the Texas National Movement’s wreath in front of the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas. Alexander Thompson/Reporting Texas

On the afternoon of May 30, a group of Black Lives Matter supporters yelled at a row of San Antonio police standing in front of the Alamo Cenotaph. The death of George Floyd had driven hundreds of thousands around the country to the streets in protest against racial injustice. San Antonio was no exception.

San Antonio native 43-year-old Brandon Burkhart, a white man, stood a few feet behind the police with several dozen members of This is Texas Freedom Force. Heavily armed, the men had heard that protesters aimed to damage the Alamo, Burkhart said. He later told me the protestors’ goal was “to destroy Anglo-Saxon history.”

Standing 6 foot 4 inches tall and weighing north of 240 pounds, Burkhart struck an intimidating figure. As the president of This is Texas Freedom Force, a group that “preserves Texas History and protects Texan’s Rights,” according to organization’s website—Burkhart is passionate about Texas and what he sees as threats to Texans—namely the removal of Confederate monuments and government infringement on the right to own guns. Perhaps the most pernicious threat to the Texans, Burkhart contends, are the liberal politicians who want to rewrite the history of Texas’s most sacred site.

Burkhart has been an outsized presence at dozens of public meetings on the Alamo redevelopment. In 2018, he was thrown out of an Alamo Citizen Advisory Committee meeting for yelling at committee members, including San Antonio Councilman Robert Treviño. “Treviño,” Burkhart said, “is nothing more than a Mexican army sympathizer.” (Treviño told me he has received at least a dozen death threats due to the Alamo redevelopment plan.)

After sharing his opinion of Treviño, Burkhart encouraged me to visit This is Texas Freedom Force’s Facebook page. (Facebook deactivated the page in November.) The page was replete with photos of guns and memes that make clear the group’s cultural perspective—“Shooting someone who says ‘I’m from California,’ should be considered self-defense”; “Texas Lives Matter, no one cares about the color of your skin”; “Texans—Women love us, Antifa fears us.” The group’s website offers T-shirts for sale—one with the slogan “I came to party like it’s 1836”—and for $40 you can have a membership card and a Velcro This is Texas Freedom Force patch.

“We’re going to keep fighting for our history,” Burkhart said, “no matter who gets in our way.”

***

On a sunny Sunday afternoon in September, San Antonio resident Ruben Cordova pointed up at the Alamo Cenotaph. “Calling the Alamo a shrine of liberty reflects a misunderstanding of why these men were fighting,” he said. Cordova, an art historian who curated The Other Side of the Alamo: Art Against the Myth, at San Antonio’s Galería Guadalupe in 2018, motioned for me to walk to the other side of the monument.

“They were fighting for Mexican land and the right to enslave black people on that land,” Cordova said.

Many Texans refuse to confront this history because the site is part of the creation myth of Texas, Cordova said, but the words of the Republic of Texas’s founding fathers are clear.

On May 4, 1836, Stephen F. Austin—one of the first Anglo settlers to Texas, the first Secretary of State of the Republic of Texas, and regarded by many as the Father of Texas—wrote to Missouri Sen. L.F. Linn to request aid for the Texas War of Independence. Austin called the fight “a war of barbarism and of despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race, against civilization and the Anglo-American race.” Austin, who had worked for years to make slavery legal in Texas, also warned of “negro insurrection” and called Mexicans the “natural enemies of white men and civilization.”

After the battle, “remember the Alamo” became a slogan for anti-Mexican sentiment in popular culture, Cordova added. The 1915 movie Martyrs of the Alamo— produced by D.W. Griffith, the director of the virulently racist Birth of a Nation—portrays Mexicans as lecherous and evil and helped fuel the Texas creation myth, Cordova said.

The erection of the Cenotaph, John Wayne’s 1960 film Alamo, and inaccurate school books have all fueled the myth, Cordova said. It’s a stubborn myth still officially sanctioned by the state, he added. In 2018 historians called for the Texas State Board of Education to change state curriculum standards which refer to the Alamo defenders as “heroic.” The board demurred.

Cordova also suggested that this anti-Mexican sentiment is why President Donald Trump mentioned the “last stand” at “the beautiful, beautiful Alamo” in his 2020 State of the Union address.

After speaking with Cordova, I called Frank de la Teja, the inaugural State Historian of Texas in 2007. When de la Teja talks about the Alamo, people don’t always like what they hear. Offering a complex understanding of the most sacrosanct Texas origin myth makes people uncomfortable, he said.

The story of the Alamo and the founding of Texas is “not solely a racial story, but race does play a role,” de la Teja said. The men who fought for Texas independence, he said, were also fighting to keep black people enslaved.

Getting Texans to take a more nuanced view of the Alamo isn’t easy, he added. It’s one reason past attempts to redevelop the Alamo didn’t gain traction.

“Updating the Alamo to make it more significant to a broader population would be good,” de la Teja said. “There’s history beyond the 13-day battle in 1836.”

***

Standing a few feet west of the Alamo Cenotaph on the evening of Sept. 22, Burkart couldn’t stop smiling. The Texas Historical Commission had just voted to block the City of San Antonio’s request for permission to move the Cenotaph. Some observers were stunned.

“My immediate reaction was shock,” Burkhart said.

During the meeting, Treviño and U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, the only black Republican in the House of Representatives, passionately presented the city’s case. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, several state representatives, and dozens of opponents of moving the monument also weighed in.

“The architects of this plan have hidden their true motives,” one man said, “they want to erase our history.”

Wallace Jefferson, commission member and former Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, voted in favor of moving the monument. Jefferson, a black man and a Republican, said he was disappointed by the public testimony of some who “questioned people’s motives instead of focusing on an objective analysis and practical concerns.”

Archeologist and commission member Jim Bruseth voted against granting the permit to move the Cenotaph. “The emotional public response affected the vote, but commissioners considered the totality of the evidence,” Bruseth said.

The vote left Treviño disheartened.

“This failing today,” Treviño told reporters, “puts the whole project in jeopardy.”

At a San Antonio City Council meeting in November, Treviño, was more sanguine.

“We as the San Antonio City Council must continue to fight for the soul of this project,” he said. “We owe it to the generations of people who call San Antonio home to tell their stories and assure their history is preserved.”

The post The New Battle of the Alamo appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

The ascent of Joe Biden and his neocon “promoters of democracy” to the White House likely means renewed attention to the idea of Color Revolutions once thought to bring liberation to nations under the heel of dictators. First in line for this latest geopolitical blessing could be Belarus, already site of protracted street protests in the wake of a hotly-challenged August election. The familiar moral imperative: get rid of a deeply-entrenched ruler (“another Hitler”) standing in the way of all that is enlightened, democratic, “Western” – in this case, also a Putin ally! If President Trump exhibited little interest in regime-change crusades, an emboldened Biden administration can be expected to seize any new opportunity with ideological zeal. And what better opportunity than a politically turbulent country on the doorstep of the tyrannical Russian empire.

Biden and his presumed Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, have already called for a more vigorous U.S. geopolitical presence in the Middle East and Europe, crucial to the goal of a revitalized neoliberal order presumably in need of more regime changes, possibly new wars that should bring the Pentagon and deep state back to less-disputed prominence in American political life. Biden recently said: “I continue to stand with the people of Belarus and support their democratic aspirations. I also condemn the appalling human rights abuses committed by the Lukashenko regime.”

Blinken, it turns out, is the ultimate neocon, with an abiding love of the Pentagon, CIA, corporate power, and Israel – matched, of course, by obligatory hatred of Russia and Putin. Blinken and Biden have been allies for nearly two decades, both Democrats havingp vigorously supported the Iraq war as well as the Libya debacle. Both are hell-bent on removing President Assad in Syria, segue to Obama’s unfinished regime-change mission there. Since 2018 Blinken has worked at WestExec Advisors, a strategic firm where the military, CIA, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley converge around shared global ambitions. Among its Beltway exploits, WestExec has serviced a good many Fortune 500 corporations, especially those doing business with the Pentagon.

In the wake of recent political dramas in Belarus – a lopsided and seemingly-fixed presidential election, massive street protests, agitated reactions from both Russia and the European Union – it seems another Color Revolution could be on the agenda, inspired by interventions in Serbia during the late 1990s and Ukraine in both 2004 and 2014 (not counting Libya in 2011). In such cases social turbulence gives rise to political breakdown and regime change.

Belarus voting in August gave Alexander Lukashenko his sixth presidency since 1994, this time with a staggering – and obviously suspicious – 80 percent of the total. That result was immediately contested by rival candidate Svetlana Tikhonovskaya, lodged from her new habitat in Vilnius, Lithuania. Street protests, already planned in late June, quickly spread and intensified. A “Freedom March” in late August attracted more than 250,000 people in the capital Minsk alone, most hoping to overthrow a leader widely referred to as “Europe’s Last Dictator”. Although no monitors had been invited to observe the election, EU leaders denounced the outcome as “illegitimate” and called for a new round of balloting, along with economic sanctions that would soon target nearly 60 Belarus elites. The opposition took off virtually overnight, fueled by hopes for a “reborn Belarus”. Described accurately in the Western media as a “sheer display of people power”, the political scene brought forth images of earlier strife in Serbia, Libya, Georgia, and Ukraine.

Could Belarus, with a population of ten million bordering Russia, eventually follow the trajectory of the “Maidan Scenario” in 2014 Ukraine, a Washington-organized coup bringing to power a motley assortment of oligarchs, neo-fascists, and rightwing nationalists? That coup, as is now well known, was engineered by a well-funded coalition of U.S. regime-changers: neocons, the CIA, a team of NGOs financed by George Soros, a group of Democrats including Biden (Obama’s “point man” in Ukraine). The established Color Revolution playbook, however, now seems less relevant to Belarus, given the enormity of the protests – meaning any Biden regime-change efforts could face less difficulty.

Worth asking at this juncture, then, is whether the political forces mobilized to oust Lukashenko signify a genuine domestic upheaval based in grassroot movements, rather independent of Western designs. In fact close scrutiny of post-election Belarus reveals the emergence of a surprisingly durable opposition to Lukashenko’s heretofore stable reign. Viewed thusly, parallels with Ukraine turn out to be actually weak. Recent (late November) demonstrations brought more than 100,000 people into the streets of Minsk alone. There have been eleven major protests since August – all large and militant though somewhat dispersed – drawing mainly from Catholics, sectors of labor, and students in consistently big numbers. On Saturdays women gather in Minsk by the tens of thousands, sometimes displaying the banner “March Against Fascism”. Masked security forces have used tear gas and stun grenades to break up the crowds; more than 15,000 have been arrested in just the past several weeks. Police repression, including frequent shutdown of Internet services, has only served to perpetuate a thriving resistance.

In whatever manner it occurs, regime change in Belarus could eventually bring additional NATO military deployments along Russian borders. A key question here turns on how Vladimir Putin might respond to stepped-up close to the Federation. The ritual view of mainstream media, in both the U.S. and Europe, is that Lukashenko’s days are indeed numbered – the only uncertainty being just when and how the villainized ruler will be toppled. We are told to believe he has little to offer Belarusians beyond continued dictatorial rule and subservience to Moscow. In reality Lukashenko, despite ample Russian material and political backing, appears so far unable to neutralize the popular tide. At the same time, deeper cultural trends favor closer Belarus ties with the West, placing the “Union State” with Moscow in greater jeopardy.

There remains another question: to what extent has foreign intervention managed to influence the continuing saga in Belarus? Put differently, are interests that so powerfully fed the coup in Kiev now equally at work in Minsk? For Belarus, mounting evidence suggests that the presence of Western interests hardly compares with that of Serbia or Ukraine, though again a Biden presidency could easily feed off something akin to a Maidan spectacle in the early months of his tenure.

While Belarus is relatively small and lacks the strategic (or resource) importance of Ukraine, that could matter little going forward. The stark reality is that regime-change in Minsk would finally bring an end to the Soviet legacy in Europe. One key to Lukashenko’s repeated electoral successes has been retention of a robust Belarus public infrastructure inherited from the Communist era. Its medical, educational, and urban programs are probably the most generous in eastern Europe, surely better than those of Russia while conflicting with harsher neoliberal agendas embraced by Washington and the EU, the “shock therapy” long resisted by Lukashenko. The Big Capital that dominates the West (and championed by billionaires like Soros) constantly seeks newer investment and market outlets, and so far Lukashenko has stood (if partially) in the way, a stubborn enemy of deregulated capitalism.

Should Belarus eventually fall to popular insurgency, one outcome would likely be dismantling of the crucial Druzhba oil pipeline connecting Russia with the rest of Europe – the world’s longest and perhaps most important. That pipeline helps cement the Belarus-Russian partnership, so its possible demise would not be taken lightly by either Putin or Lukashenko. EU leaders have scarcely disguised their hopes of disrupting a pipeline that gives Moscow such vast economic leverage across Europe.

Finally, there is the antiquated NATO alliance that derives its central rationale from targeting a weakened (though still militarily-powerful) Russia. With collapse of the Berlin Wall and then dismantlement of Yugoslavia, Color Revolutions were viewed in the West as the wave of the future. The present scenario would leave Moscow to face a Washington increasingly obsessed, for reasons not fully intelligible, with rekindling a new Cold War. Along this trajectory, presumably, Belarus would end up the receptacle of Western corporate and military interests, no different from the Balkans, Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania. Here the fate of Lukashenko would likely resemble that of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, a “dictator” (though elected) turned into a diabolical war criminal. Since August NATO armed deployments have been augmented near the lengthy Belarus borders with Poland and Lithuania.

The extent to which Maidan-style operatives have been active in Belarus during 2020 has been limited. Both Lukashenko and the Russians insist that Western agents, including many NGOs, are in fact extremely active in Minsk and a few other cities, but their scope hardly approaches that in Ukraine, where well-funded American involvement goes back to 1989. There are reports indicating that CIA regime-change assets are currently being mobilized in Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States, some possibly for action in Belarus. U.S.-funded media (Radio Free Europe, others) has indeed turned more aggressive since the election, no doubt energized by the street protests. Regime-change operatives have identified fertile targets among Catholics and students, as mentioned, along with workers at the rising tech sector (known as High Tech Park) in Minsk. Yet Washington penetration of Belarus currently falls well short of that needed for a successful coup, reflecting in part Trump’s apparent lack of interest in Color Revolutions. The Soros-backed International Renaissance Foundation has not been noticeably active in Belarus, but that too could eventually change.

Even should prospects for a “Maidan in Minsk” increase with Biden and his neocon allies in the White House and a more active deep state, that fantasy comes with enormous risks in a setting where the two most powerfully nuclear-armed states, deeply-suspicious of each other, expand the zone of escalating conflict. Putin, indeed any Russian leader, is very unlikely to tolerate another U.S./NATO Color takeover on his doorstep. Belarus remains a vital buffer state between Russia and the rest of Europe. And retaining hold of the mammoth oil pipeline is surely non-negotiable. Whether Putin would be ready to risk military conflict over Belarus obviously raises even bigger questions. As for Washington, crazed by years of Russiagate and generalized anti-Russia hysteria, one cannot rule out any future geopolitical calamity.

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

It was a warm fall day on September 29, 1957, not much unlike any other in the deep Russian interior. Residents in the Chelyabinsk oblast cared for their crops of wheat and potatoes, others herded cattle. Women hung out their family’s clothes to dry as the winds picked up before the sun descended. In the distance, along the ridge in the southern sky, streams of dark colors began to appear. The town paper would speculate that the natural polar lights were responsible for the odd aura along the horizon. But there was a problem: the strange hues were not where the Northern Lights typically appeared. Those lights appeared north, not south of Chelyabinsk—plus, the Northern Lights were shades of blue and green, not gray and black. Something was off, but there was no panic in Chelyabinsk. In the Southern Urals, where Chelyabinsk was located, the local strain of late-1950s culture was not unlike that in the rural farming communities of the American Midwest: people were hard-working, church-going, family-oriented, patriotic, and tough. Their lives, however, were about to change forever.

Government workers descended on the small towns in and around Chelyabinsk, twenty of which were soon evacuated. Around ten thousand people, mostly peasants, were forced out, leaving their pets and possessions behind. Farmers were instructed to slaughter their cows, destroy fertile farmland, and kill off their crops. Their livelihoods and way of life were destroyed, and no reason was given as to why they had to take such drastic measures so quickly.

Mayak was constructed in 1946 and helped procure the Soviets’ first atomic bomb in 1949 under the leadership of Joseph Stalin. Like virtually all of Russia’s nuclear projects during the Soviet era, and just like the United States’s Manhattan Project, Mayak was built and operated in total secret and with outright disregard for local communities and ecology. As one of the Soviets’ covert “plutonium cities,” Mayak became known as Chelyabinsk-40, a sort of dehumanizing code name that would soon become synonymous with disaster.

“Starting in the late 1940s, the Russians released a great deal of radioactive waste into the waterways near Mayak, including lakes, streams, ponds, and reservoirs,” recalls Don Bradley, author of Behind the Nuclear Curtain: Radioactive Waste Management in the Former Soviet Union. “For many years, radioactive effluent at Mayak was released directly into the Techa River, a major source of water for twenty-four villages along its banks.” Every one of these villages, Bradley notes, do not exist. All residents were evacuated years ago. 

***

Today, Mayak no longer makes plutonium, but the facility is still operational and serves as a reprocessing site for spent nuclear fuel. The act of reprocessing spent fuel was banned in the United States in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. His administration believed doing away with spent fuel reprocessing was an important step in reducing nuclear weapons proliferation. Even though Mayak isn’t active as a production site, from the radioactive waste all around it, you’d think that it’s still churning out nuclear fuel.

The body of water that received the most contamination from Mayak’s nuclear fuel production was Lake Karachay. “Contamination [in Chelyabinsk] is perhaps the highest in the world, and the most acute problem in that region is at Lake Karachay,” Thomas Nilsen, a researcher at the Bellona Foundation, an environmental organization headquartered in Oslo, Norway, said in 2001, fifteen years after the accident at Chernobyl, but ten years before the Fukushima meltdown. He continued: “The Soviets started dumping waste from reprocessed plutonium into Karachay in the early 1950s, and extreme levels of radiation are still being monitored there.” 

In fact, an isolated corner of the lake was at one time so chock-full of radioactive particles that human survival after a mere thirty minutes of exposure was fifty-fifty. Over 120 million curies of radioactive waste polluted the body of water. In the 1990s, Don Bradley, along with other researchers, visited one of the least polluted areas of the lake. “We drove out [to] … the lake with a guy holding a Geiger counter and a watch,” recounted Bradley. “After ninety seconds, we came back. In that brief time, we received the equivalent dose of radiation of an airplane flight from Moscow to New York.” 

However, the danger does not just exist in the lake itself. If levels are low, the lake has the potential to dry up during the hotter summer months, leaving open the possibility that the wind could carry radioactive dust across the region. This happened in 1967 when low snowfall resulted in a drastic decline in Lake Karachay’s water levels, producing something of a nuclear summer. Wind currents blew particles from the toxic lake bed across a 1,800 square mile stretch of Chelyabinsk, contaminating upwards of a half-a-million unwitting people. To this day, little is known about what sort of impact the wind-blown particles had on the health of people or the land. In recent years, workers have placed large concrete blocks and stones on the lakebed to keep the dust at bay. There’s no easy solution, of course, and this rudimentary fix could spawn another problem. “The stones help prevent the dust, but the weight also presses the sediments down and moves them closer to the groundwater,” says Thomas Nilsen. “It’s a catch-22.” 

Over a ten year period, from 1948 and 1958, over 17,245 Mayak workers were exposed to radiation overdoses. Dumping of radioactive waste in nearby rivers was also responsible for a number of nuke-related illnesses downstream, where drinking water and agricultural production depended on irrigation.  

While residents were aware that the secret site of Mayak was a problem, they had no idea what had caused those mysterious lights in the sky on that fall afternoon in 1957. The secret was that something had gone terribly wrong at Mayak, where the site had instituted a cooling system early on that continually kept its hot nuclear waste from reaching a critical point. But the waste in a holding cistern buried twenty feet underground began to heat up fast. The system had failed, but nobody knew what was happening until it was far too late. As the radioactive slop reached 350 degrees Celsius, its 160-ton concrete lid began to tremble, and finally blew. The cistern and the eighty tons of boiling gunk inside exploded in a volcanic eruption filled with radioactive steam and soot a half-mile into the air. The black cloud darkened the sky, spreading twenty million curies of blistering atomic particles across 52,000 square kilometers, roughly the size of West Virginia, and contaminating the homes of an estimated 270,000 people. Later, the accident at Mayak became known as the Kyshtym disaster, after the name of the closest town to the blast. In the immediate aftermath, the first wave of forced evacuation, encompassing nearly 10,000 people, was initiated, but it took upwards of two years for other evacuations to be carried out in nearby towns that had also been exposed to the radioactive fallout.  

The blast measured as a Level 6 disaster on the International Nuclear Event Scale, which places the Kyshtym disaster behind Chernobyl and Fukushima (both Level 7s) as the third-most significant nuclear disaster ever. It is certainly the least well-known. At the time, just as the United States government kept the inner workings of their own nuclear program shrouded in secrecy, the Soviet government kept Mayak under wraps. Mayak, according to many Soviet maps, did not even exist. 

It wasn’t until 1976, when dissident scientist Zhores A. Medvedev wrote an article for the British journal The New Scientist, that the Western world was made aware of what happened.

For many years nuclear reactor waste had been buried in a deserted area a few dozen miles from the Urals town of Blagovehsnesk. The waste was not buried very deep. Nuclear scientists had often warned about the dangers involved in this primitive method of waste disposal, but nobody listened. Suddenly there was an enormous explosion. The nuclear reactions had led to overheating in the burial grounds. The explosion poured radioactive materials high into the sky. It was just the wrong weather for such a tragedy. Strong winds blew the radioactive clouds hundreds of miles away.

Tens of thousands of people were affected, hundreds dying, though the real figures have never been made public. Many villages and towns were only ordered to evacuate when the symptoms of radiation sickness were already apparent. The irradiated population was distributed over many clinics. But no one really knew how to treat the different stages of radiation sickness, how to measure the radiation dose received by the patients and their offspring. Radiation genetics and radiology could have provided the answer, but neither of them was available.

Not all believed Medvedev’s account. Sir John Hill, chairman of Britain’s Atomic Energy Authority, called the report “rubbish” and “a figment of the imagination.” However, Medvedev’s story was later confirmed by ex-Soviet physicist Leo Tumerman, who stated he had seen firsthand the devastation of Kyshtym only a couple of years after the incident. “The area was filled with radiation,” admitted Tumerman. “And you couldn’t drink the water or eat the fish.” Tumerman added that “All the people with whom I spoke, scientists as well as laymen—had no doubt that the blame lay with Soviet officials who were negligent and careless in storing nuclear wastes.”

One anonymous witness wrote of what happened immediately following the blast. “Very quickly all the leaves curled up and fell off the trees.” The observer also described a gruesome scene at a local hospital. “Some of the [victims] were bandaged and some were not. We could see the skin on their faces, hands and other exposed parts of the body to be sloughing off. These victims of the blast were brought into the hospital during the night. It was a horrible sight.”

The explosion was indeed horrific, but radiation doesn’t always have an immediate impact. It can take weeks, months, or even years to make itself known. The fallout from the Mayak explosion landed throughout the region, most of which descended on an area four miles wide and thirty miles long. Streams, lakes, and acres of farmland were blanketed with radioactive soot. In villages closest to Kyshtym, men jumped in space suit-like garments from military helicopters, instructing those tending to the fields to continue to dig out their crops. Entire families worked without proper safety gear. Not even shoes or protective masks were provided. They were told to dump what they had harvested into holes that had been dug by bulldozers. Throughout that fall, these families harvested and stacked wheat and hay into large piles, which were then set on fire. In other villages outside the immediate blast-zone, life appeared normal, until investigators began to look a bit more closely.

Another anonymous eyewitness, who surveyed the area shortly after the blast, discovered a ravaged scene. “[We] crossed a strange, uninhabited, and unframed area. Highway signs along the way warned drivers not to stop for the next twenty to thirty kilometers because of radiation. The land was empty. There were no villages, no towns, no people, no cultivated land; only chimneys of destroyed houses remained.”

In one village, a full week after the accident, monitors discovered something startling. Children there were literally steaming with radiation. S.F. Osotin, who had been a member of the team that carried out those initial findings, recalled that a colleague placed a Geiger counter up to one child’s belly and got a reading of 40-50 microroentgens per second. They couldn’t believe what they were witnessing. Cows that munched on atomically-charged grass were visibly sick, bleeding at the mouth. Soldiers shot them on sight. Chickens too were loaded up with atomic particles, but were still being eaten by locals because they had no idea what was going on. Other unwitting villages had astonishingly high levels of radiation as well. One such town, Berdianish, produced readings of 350-400 microroentgens per second—amounts that will kill you after four weeks of exposure.

***

Though kept a secret by the Soviets, the CIA discovered the Kyshtym nuclear accident a few years after the fact through a network of spies and on-the-ground informants, along with aerial photographs of the wreckage. In May, 1960, U-2 spy pilot Francis Gary Powers was shot down by Soviet Air Defense Forces attempting to capture high altitude photographs of the devastation at the Mayak site. Powers was captured and sentenced to three years for espionage, and in 1962 was exchanged for Soviet officer Rudolf Abel.

It wasn’t until 1978, after the Critical Mass Energy Project acquired fourteen heavily-redacted documents, that the CIA admitted they had known about the Mayak disaster all along. Like the Soviets, the United States government kept what they had learned a secret and did not share what they knew with the public—not only to protect their sources, but also, critics argued, in order to avoid raising concern about the United States’s own nuclear program.

“Absent any other reason for withholding information from the public,” nuclear critic Ralph Nader said in a 1978 interview, “one possible motivation could have been the reluctance of the CIA to highlight a nuclear accident in the USSR that could cause concern among people living near nuclear facilities in the United States.”

According to one estimate by the Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk, the ultimate death toll caused by the Mayak explosion was 8,015 people over a 32-year period. The long-term impacts of the singular event are difficult to quantify, as the facility released an insurmountable amount of radiation for over three decades. 

The Mayak disaster of 1957, while covered up by both the Soviets abroad and the US government at home, should have raised serious alarms about nuclear safety and the risks associated with radioactive contamination. However, being truthful about the danger associated with producing atomic bombs and storing radioactive waste would have also meant having to confront the reality that Hanford, Mayak’s sister facility in the United States, along with other nuclear sites around the country, was putting local populations and environment in serious peril. Keeping the war machine running meant putting a positive spin on nuclear technology, from weapons to nuclear energy. In a sense, American power was based on the myth that there was little downside to nuclear proliferation, only endless potential. The mythical capabilities of atomic energy continue to permeate debates today about combating climate change and challenging our fossil fuel addiction. 

This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Photograph Source: Gage Skidmore – CC BY 2.0

The renowned historiographer E.H. Carr famously compared the historian with his facts to the fishmonger with fish on the slab; the historian collects the facts, takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him. Naturally, the historian will add spices and other ingredients to draw out the precise flavor needed to make an average meal into a palette-pleasing feast for the senses. But, in doing so, there is the ever-present danger that the spices, the tantalizing aroma, and the aesthetically pleasing presentation are merely an attempt to mask the fact that the fish has long since turned rotten.

And when it comes to the course of US politics, there is the distinct stench of putrefaction. And, while America’s putrescent corpus decays further, the unmistakable rasp of circling vultures becomes inescapable, the smell overwhelming.

Enter: Donald Trump – the vulture made flesh. And, as the President-elect circles high above his prey, awaiting the moment that he and his Wall Street-Pentagon flock can begin their feast, it remains for the rest of us to consider just what we’ve lived through, and how the history of this low-water mark will be written.

A distinct narrative has already emerged from various corners of the media and blogosphere: Trump’s victory was due to discontent with neoliberalism and the decades of economic neglect and exploitation of the white working class. And, of course, this makes sense and is undoubtedly a significant factor. However, is it entirely true? Was Trump’s path to the Oval Office truly paved by the precarious economic existence of millions of blue collar white Americans?

But in answering that question, we’re confronted with another, even more complex question: how is economic disaffection among White America actually expressed? And do those expressing that rage have any cognizance of the root causes of their socio-political outlook?

By examining the available data, it becomes clear that while seething anger from economic hardship brought on by neoliberalism may be an aspect underlying much of the core of Trumpism, it is not the dominant factor. Rather, Trump’s win should rightly be understood as the triumph of white identity politics. And the data supports this conclusion.

***

A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst entitled Explaining White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism found that “while economic dissatisfaction was part of the story, racism and sexism were much more important and can explain about two-thirds of the education gap among whites in the 2016 presidential vote.” The analysis used data from a national survey conducted during the final week of October (just days before the election), and concluded that the negative effects of neoliberalism and the rule of Wall Street were not the single most important factor in the victory for Trump. Rather it was “whiteness” and misogyny which played a pivotal role.

It must be stated that the Democratic Party has attempted to explain away its stunning collapse in the face of perhaps the weakest Republican candidate in generations by attributing it entirely to racism and misogyny, thereby absolving itself of any blame. This is, of course, laughable. Still, the question of whiteness looms large.

Scholars at the Universities of Michigan and Texas recently published a key study entitled The Changing Norms of Racial Political Rhetoric and the End of Racial Priming which, among other things, concluded that overtly racialized political rhetoric has become normalized, that it is no longer taboo, and that the election of Barack Obama played a significant role in this process. While undoubtedly true, the researchers highlighted a far more important, and too often overlooked, engine of the Trump Train – “white oppression.”

The researchers noted that:

Whites’ perceptions of their group’s racial distinctiveness and disadvantage may be on the rise…[Studies have found] a rise in White identity over the last several election cycles, and especially since the election of the nation’s first Black president in 2008. Concerns about demographic shifts and economic stagnation may have led many Whites to increasingly think that their racial group is under external threat, and these pressures increase identification (Knowles & Peng 2005). These increases in entatativity [sic] – the perception among group members that they belong to a coherent and unified collective – boosts the acceptability of explicit expressions of prejudice and anger toward outgroups (Effron & Knowles 2015).

While it is typical liberal media swill to portray all anger and resentment at Obama and his disastrous policies as racist reaction against the first Black president, there is still that underlying social illness of white supremacy which undeniably does fuel a good deal of the anger. And that rage had its political expression in Donald Trump who deftly employed racist dog-whistles throughout his campaign. From describing Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers to calling for a ban on Muslims, Trump managed to capitalize on the increased entitativity of White America which, perhaps for the first time since George Wallace, had a political expression, an embodiment in one candidate.

None of this is to say that Hillary Clinton didn’t have plenty of white people supporting her, nor that Trump didn’t have support from non-white communities. But, taken in toto, it was the angry white vote which sealed the presidency for Trump.

As the researchers from Michigan and Texas (Valentino, Neuner, and Vandenbroek) implied, it was the perception of a coherent and unified collective which truly unified the white working class around Trump. It was less his pandering to working class issues than his ability to both overtly and covertly employ racist overtones.

Another study, this one conducted by researchers from UC Santa Barbara and Stanford University (Major, Blodorn, Blascovich), found that personal identification with whiteness was directly related to the perception of oppression and future destruction of white people. Those respondents who were told that nonwhite groups will outnumber white people in the next three decades were more likely to support Trump.

Again, this conclusion illustrates the fact that a significant proportion of Trump’s support came from a fear of a loss of identity, a loss of dominance which translates into a loss of culture, morality, and greatness. Hence the need to recapture that 1950s feeling of white privilege or, put in the parlance of political sloganeering, the need to make America great again.

But let us not dismiss out of hand the claim that Trump’s victory was primarily due to his support from the working class, and that his candidacy fundamentally altered the political identification of class. A useful method for interrogating this question is to examine the relative wealth and financial security of the Trumpistas.

According to an analysis conducted by the Urban Institute:

Among the 55 counties with residents with the highest average credit scores (720 and above), Hillary Clinton won just four of them: Falls Church, Virginia (with an average credit score of 729); San Juan County, Washington (722); Cook County, Minnesota (721); and Washington County, Minnesota (720). High credit scores are associated with long, successful credit histories and bills paid on time and are implicit markers of financial security and stability over a lifetime. High credit scores are also more often held by white consumers.

So, if Trump represented an upsurge in poor and working class political power, that was news to the tens of millions of affluent, employed, financially stable white people who voted for him. In fact, according to the data, the more financially secure the county, and the higher its average credit score and median income, the more likely it was to vote for Trump. Naturally, this is in large part due to racial inequalities that persist in the US as Blacks and Hispanics tend to have lower credit scores, less access to credit, lower median incomes, etc.

If anything, the question of class-based support has not been answered. Both Trump and Clinton captured rich people and poor people in their base. The difference is the overwhelming white support for Trump.

And this is borne out by what might be the most comprehensive demographic study on the Trumpen Proletariat yet. Gallup’s Jonathan Rothwell conducted an in-depth analysis which revealed something profound: Trump’s supporters are richer, not poorer, than average. Moreover, he concluded that the overriding factor determining support for Trump was not economics (NAFTA, Chinese competition, etc.) but rather segregation. Specifically, Rothwell found that the core of Trump’s support came from people living in communities mostly or entirely unaffected by immigration.

Consider that for a moment. White people living in all white communities thinking that they are under assault from immigrants, Muslims and other minorities. It is, once again, that entitativity: the feeling that white people form a cohesive and singular group that is increasingly oppressed. It is not immigrants taking their jobs, it’s the idea of immigrants taking their jobs. It’s not Muslims moving in next door, it’s the possibility that it might happen.

It’s not so much that, like the angry citizens of South Park proclaimed: “Dey took er jerbs!!!” Rather it’s that they’re over there down the road, and soon they’ll be here. This form of racism and white supremacy is manifested in the mind of the white racist as a lamentation for the despoiling of a once great white hope. America is under attack because whiteness is under attack. And who better to blame than the non-white?

Trump, Brexit, and the Politics of ‘White Genocide’

Perhaps one of the most effective levers for mobilizing the white racist vote is the meme that has been popularized by fascists – be they of the hooded klansman or the Alt-Right variety – of ‘white genocide’. This idea is multiform as it can take any number of iterations. For some white supremacists, ‘white genocide’ is a conspiracy theory that refers to the literal extermination of whites through immigration, miscegenation, abortion, and other means. However, it can also be used in a broader and more loosely defined sense as simply the process by which non-whites integrate into, and alter the character of, white European and Anglo-American society.

Recently, the well-known leftist academic George Ciccariello-Maher became the victim of an online smear campaign waged by white nationalists and their supremacist allies after he tweeted a satirical comment which read “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.” The tweet, which was intended as a humorous jab at the lunacy of the very notion of white genocide, instead created a media firestorm after hundreds of social media users issued threats against Ciccariello-Maher, his family, and his employer Drexel University.

While it may seem a minor social media hullabaloo, the incident actually cuts to the very core of Trumpism: white identity. For it is only in opposition to the corrupting forces of multiculturalism and diversity that the white identity is constructed. There is relatively little that unites the Irish-Catholic in New York City with the rural Baptist in the South or the Methodist in the Midwest, except for their whiteness, the feeling that they are on the same side in a struggle for survival. Put another way, it is only through the shared delusion of white oppression that something akin to white entitativity –White America as a distinct group – is even possible.

Of course, this phenomenon is not relegated solely to the US. In Britain, 2016 saw the Brexit referendum which many interpreted not as a vote on membership in the European Union, but rather as a referendum on immigration. Indeed, according to The Migration Observatory at Oxford University, at least 77 percent of Britons believe immigration levels should be reduced, with roughly 45 percent of respondents ranking immigration/race relations at the top of the list of important issues – this was up from near zero percent 20 years ago.

In Britain, just as in the US, it is whiteness that is under assault, and it’s the sense of loss of dominance and control that is driving so much of the white anger. And in Britain, just as in the US, that sense of loss of power is manifested in the slogans attached the movement. Where for Trump it was “Make America Great Again” for Nigel Farage and the Brexit supporters it was “Take Back Control.”

With both slogans there is the obvious reactionary quality, the sense that the past was glorious and that if only it could be recaptured things would go back to the way they were. And while both slogans are ostensibly positive, the subtext is clearly one of racism and jingoism. For white Britons, “control” was embodied by the British Empire with its dominion over so much of the world. To “take back control” is to recapture the lost glory, to rekindle the flame. Similarly in the US, making America great again is not a far cry from saying “Make America White Again” as Trumpistas reminisce about the good old days when men were men and ‘Coloreds’ entered through the rear.

Once again these interrelated campaigns are rooted in white identity masked as patriotism. For Trumpistas, America is, by its very definition, white, and any attempts to make it anything else are seen as an existential threat. For Brexiters, national identity, as distinct from that of continental Europe and the EU, was the crux of the issue. But when one probes what exactly that national identity is, it becomes clear that the rocky island off the northwestern coast of Europe has its island status rooted in its self-conception: Britain, the island standing against the human tide.

As Dr. Tim Haughton, Head of the Department of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham incisively noted, “‘Take back control’ effectively combined not just a sense of a positive future albeit never defined or elaborated, but also suggested a sense of rightful ownership.”

Precisely. It is the sense of ownership that is really at issue on both sides of the Atlantic. For Trump and Brexit supporters, it is the white Anglo-European who ‘owns’ the country, and all the brown and black skinned people are mere infiltrators whose very presence taints and despoils the pristine nation.

This very same phenomenon is replaying itself over and over all across Europe. Perhaps the most ominous such development is the steady rise of Marine Le Pen and the National Front in France. According to many political experts, including French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, Le Pen will likely go to a runoff in the May 2017 presidential election where she could prove to be the culmination of the same process that brought us Brexit and Trump. And with Le Pen, whose fascist pedigree is well known both inside and outside France, the notion of white identity as the basis for a political movement will become a hard, inescapable reality.

Similarly, in Russia the fascist philosopher-cum-political operator Alexander Dugin has become a mainstream figure as he promotes his brand of fascism in Russia and throughout Europe and the US. Using powerful state-sponsored media platforms such as RT and Sputnik, Dugin has propagated his so-called “Eurasianist” vision throughout the West. In Dugin’s worldview, it is liberalism and multiculturalism that have corrupted contemporary life with their slavish devotion to modernity and secular liberal values, and only a reconstituted Russian Empire that would fuse together much of Northern Eurasia (with China noticeably absent) into one “civilizational” unit can provide a viable future.

A fundamental feature of Dugin’s Eurasianist vision is the fact that it is racially segregated. According to Duginists, there is a natural order to the world wherein Blacks stay in Africa, Arabs in the Middle East and so on in what amounts to a form of global apartheid. Duginism appropriates left wing economic and political ideas such as anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism within a fascist socio-cultural framework. And, at the core of that ideology is white supremacy and white identity.

Trump, Farage, Le Pen, and Dugin all appeal to a sense of loss of identity. In fact, it’s undeniably their most effective position. But it must be clarified, and shouted from the mountaintops, that it is not simply a loss of national identity as many movement supporters, and political analysts alike, would have you believe. Rather, it is the loss of a white national identity that is at the root.

And so Trump, like his British and European analogues, has ridden a wave of momentum of white identity politics masquerading as pro-working class, pro-social safety net, anti-free trade, etc. But these are mere political chimeras, designed more for their reality TV appeal than ideological substance. In effect, Trump’s appeal was to the white working class on racial lines; his purported position on the social safety net programs mere political posturing whose subtext was really that it’s not going to be lazy blacks and “illegals” who will get their government benefits, it will be hard working whites.

It is almost painful, and certainly embarrassing, to have to explain that this has become the political reality in 2016, but it has. The rising tide of fascism under its many guises is unifying behind the concept of white supremacy or, as Alt-Right svengali Richard Spencer has called it, “racialism.” And, in the US, Donald Trump has managed to transform white identity into a political framework in a way that very few had thought possible.

So we must return to the question of the historian as fishmonger and chef. Yes, it’s true that the ingredients have been collected, the water brought to a boil, the apron and hat impeccably clean. And yet, there is that stench, that overwhelming, vomit-inducing putrid odor. So, what to do? Mask it with fancy spices, a good white wine, and some pungent herbs? Certainly it seems that’s what the lazy and inept chef might do.

Are our analysts and historians equally lazy? Will they mask the stench of racism, xenophobia and white supremacy behind wave after wave of sweet-smelling, but ultimately inauthentic, narratives of anti-neoliberal reaction and working class resurgence? Or will they instead write the real history of this moment, in all its complexity?

If it is to be the latter, then we must demand that the history of this moment be the documentation of a radical rightward shift in US politics. Not because a right-wing Republican is in office, but because the far right has captured political, social, and cultural legitimacy. And white identity politics has been their vehicle.

Naturally, the Mussolini of Midtown will come and go with the structures of oppression and power intact, and indeed expanded in both scope and scale. But the movement that has congealed around him will live on long after he’s ridden into the gold-encrusted sunset of his dreams. So too will the now fully formed socio-political concept of white identity.

This new chapter of struggle is much bigger than Trump, though he is undoubtedly the largest and orangest head on the hydra. This is now one of the defining political struggles of our lifetime.

And as our fishmonger-historian sits down to write the history of this period, what will he say? Will he record the story of the History of the Decline and Fall of the American Empire with The Donald as our Nero, tweeting while it all burns? Or will this be a story of redemption as millions of people from around the world came together to defend the oppressed, the marginalized, the exploited, and smash incipient fascism?

I suppose it will be up to us, the actors in this tragicomedy, to determine that.

The post Donald Trump and the Triumph of White Identity Politics appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on Radio Free.