A dialog with Professor Wallerstein.

Professor Wallerstein,

While the Egyptian right has "won" for the moment as you say, I think you are wrong in assuming, or you seem to be assuming, that this "victory" will be long-term.

I also think you are wrong in saying the United States wants stability in the region when it is the instability that allows the United States to control and dominate the region--- otherwise why would the promotion of ethnic strife be the main focus of the CIA's activities in the region? Once ethnic strife is inflamed it usually takes many years to stop, and it usually takes a strong socialist government implementing some kind of Affirmative Action for the minorities who have suffered the brunt of ethnic hatreds--- something Nasser took into account.  

You mention the role of Nasser and you mis-characterize his role in the region; he did in fact help bring into existence a very strong anti-imperialist (often pro-socialist) and very progressive alliance which served the interests of the people.

Nasser never promoted the interests of imperialism in the region and most notably was an ardent foe of U.S. imperialism as he helped lead the non-aligned movement--- certainly nothing like the conqueror Napoleon to whom you compare his actions.

You don't mention the extremely deep roots of Nasser's Arab Socialist Union party in Egypt.

While you have acknowledged Nasser, something few others do in discussing Egypt, you don't mention the strength of the Nasserists in Egypt, today, which is a very strong movement--- their candidate (Hamdeen Sabahi) came in a very strong third (21 percent of the vote to Morsi's 24% in the first vote--- just barely loosing out to the second place finisher) in the last election even though the Nasserists are somewhat divided between what they call the "old" Nasserists (the minority; stronger adherents of socialism) and the "new" Nasserists (the majority; with whom the Nasserist candidate who came in third is aligned [these "new" Nasserists promote more capitalism than the "old" Nasserists but still promote a much larger government responsibility in most everything including the "market"--- Hamdeen Sabahi is kind of a Henry Wallace type of progressive).

One could easily speculate that if the "old" and "new" Nasserists were less at odds with one another, Sabahi may have finished first; but, most likely second, and have been in a run-off with Morsi.

Sabahi, who has been jailed many times for opposing military rule may come to regret that he supported this military coup.

I find it kind of strange you make a comparison between Nasser and Napolean; but, then, again, I find it kind of strange that with you being an anti-imperialist and an ideological leader of the movement against globalization, you would lend your name to supporting Obama--- who next, Hillary? 

​Alan L. Maki​

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Becky Dunlop <dunlop@binghamton.edu> wrote:

Please do not reply to the listserv. To correspond with the author, write immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu. To correspond with us about your email address on the listserv, write dunlop@binghamton.edu. Thank you.

Commentary No. 360, Sept. 1, 2013

"Armies in Power"

It is almost always bad news when armies are in power. In Egypt, the army has been the deciding force since 1952. The recent destitution by the Egyptian army of President Mohamed Morsi was not a coup d'état. One cannot commit a coup d'état against oneself. What happened was simply that the army changed the way it was governing Egypt. For a short period, the army had allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to make some limited state decisions. When they began to feel that the actions of the Morsi government might lead to a significant increase in Muslim Brotherhood power at the expense of the Egyptian army, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi decided that enough was enough, and acted ruthlessly to increase the day-to-day power of the army. 

Armies in power are in general highly nationalist and very authoritarian. They tend to be very conservative forces in terms of the world-economy. Furthermore, the senior officers not only permit the army to have a direct entrepreneurial role, but they also tend to use their military power as a mode of personal enrichment. This has certainly been the case for most of the time since the Egyptian army assumed direct power in 1952 - or shall we say, at least since 1952.

Is it possible for armies to play a progressive role in national and world politics? Yes, certainly. Sometimes the nationalism of the army leads them to espouse an anti-imperialist line in geopolitics and a populist role in supporting the needs of the underclasses. This was the case with the initial role of Gamal Abdel Nasser. But progressive populism is unnatural for armies, which find it difficult to engage in the bargaining process it necessarily entails internally. And progressive populism leads to a readiness to impose the army's views on neighboring countries, thereby undermining precisely what had been progressive in their geopolitical stances. This was true of Nasser as it had been true of Napoleon. 

What is interesting about the Egyptian army's crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood is the reaction it has evoked within and outside the country. Remember first of all that before the initial uprising against Hosni Mubarak began in Tahrir Square in 2011 the Muslim Brotherhood had managed to obtain a limited role in political life (a small minority of seats in the legislature and some limits to its repression) by a tacit deal with the Mubarak regime, which means with the army. 

So when the populace began to flow into Tahrir Square demanding change, neither the army nor the Muslim Brotherhood was very supportive. However, when the popular uprising seemed to be taking off, both the army and the Muslim Brotherhood decided hastily to join it, in order to tame it by appropriating it. And when the run-off in the first presidential election reduced the choice to one between Morsi and a former leading figure of the Mubarak regime, both the secular left and centrist voters and the army chose Morsi, enabling him to win by a small margin.

When Morsi decided to proceed to put into effect a new constitution with a decidedly Muslim tilt, the secular voters returned to Tahrir Square to denounce him. The army joined them once again to control the situation. And the secular voters now cheered on the very army they had denounced two years earlier. 

The political situation is straightforward. Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian right (the forces that had long supported Mubarak) command enough voters so that any reasonably honest election will allow one or the other to be victorious. The secular forces - the multiple socialist parties and the middle-class centrists whose leading figure at the moment is Mohamed el-Baradei, are too few in number. In the end, they have to join forces with one or the other, while they really want neither the right nor the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Egyptian Salafists joined the anti-Morsi coalition, hoping thereby to strengthen their own hand among Muslim activists. 

In the rest of the world, the enthusiasts for the actions of the army are a strange lot: Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Algeria and Morocco, and probably Bashar al-Assad. The unhappy ones are Hamas, Ennahda in Tunisia, Turkey, and Qatar. As for the United States (as well as western Europe), it loses whoever wins, and has become irrelevant.

For Israel, Morsi represented a threat whereas the Egyptian army will preserve the relative detente. For Saudi Arabia, the Brotherhood represented their great rivals in the Arab world. For al-Assad, the Brotherhood had been great supporters of the Free Syrian Army. Algeria and Morocco both work hard to constrain Islamist forces, and the fall of Morsi is therefore to be applauded. For Russia, the fall of Morsi probably guarantees no major shift in the geopolitics of the region, which is what Russia wants. 

For Turkey (as for Ennahda in Tunisia), the fall of Morsi undermines the case for a "moderate" Islamic government. For Qatar, the fall of Morsi weakens their hand in their struggle with Saudi Arabia. 

The U.S. government wants above all stability in the region. It was ready to work with Morsi, if necessary. It has long had the closest possible ties with the Egyptian army. It has tried to wiggle between the two, offending both sides as well as both neo-cons and human rights supporters in the United States. 

The one presumed piece of U.S. leverage with Egypt - its financial aid, of which 80% goes to the army - cannot be used. For one thing, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have already sent in more money than the United States has been giving. And secondly, the U.S. government needs the Egyptian army more than the other way around. The Egyptian army likes to buy its equipment from the United States. But if cut off from that, it can find equipment elsewhere. The U.S. government needs the Egyptian army for overflight rights, intelligence assistance, assurances about detente with Israel, and many other things, for which there is no replacement. So, Obama is reduced to making symbolic gestures, with no teeth.

The Egyptian right has won, the Egyptian left has lost (even if it doesn’t yet acknowledge this), and the Muslim Brotherhood will go underground, from which it may yet re-emerge, strengthened. 

 by Immanuel Wallerstein

-- 
Becky Dunlop
Secretary, Fernand Braudel Center
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton NY 13902
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/

-- 

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

 

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell: 651-587-5541

Primary E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

E-mail: alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com

Blog: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

"To Fulfill These Rights"

"To Fulfill These Rights;" The Presidential speech you are not supposed to know about because, unlike Obama's speeches, this speech by President Lyndon B. Johnson was followed up with real action.

This is a speech sometimes, but not often, quoted; and almost never published in it's entirety for people to read.

"To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man."


"We are trying to attack these evils through our poverty program, through our education program, through our medical care and our other health programs, and a dozen more of the Great Society programs that are aimed at the root causes of this poverty."


"These differences are not racial differences. They are solely and simply the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice. They are anguishing to observe. For the Negro they are a constant reminder of oppression. For the white they are a constant reminder of guilt. But they must be faced and they must be dealt with and they must be overcome, if we are ever to reach the time when the only difference between Negroes and whites is the color of their skin."


"The Negro, like these others, will have to rely mostly upon his own efforts. But he just can not do it alone. For they did not have the heritage of centuries to overcome, and they did not have a cultural tradition which had been twisted and battered by endless years of hatred and hopelessness, nor were they excluded--these others--because of race or color--a feeling whose dark intensity is matched by no other prejudice in our society."

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650604.asp

President Lyndon B. Johnson's

Commencement Address at Howard University: "To Fulfill These Rights"

June 4, 1965

Dr. Nabrit, my fellow Americans:

I am delighted at the chance to speak at this important and this historic institution. Howard has long been an outstanding center for the education of Negro Americans. Its students are of every race and color and they come from many countries of the world. It is truly a working example of democratic excellence.

Our earth is the home of revolution. In every corner of every continent men charged with hope contend with ancient ways in the pursuit of justice. They reach for the newest of weapons to realize the oldest of dreams, that each may walk in freedom and pride, stretching his talents, enjoying the fruits of the earth.

Our enemies may occasionally seize the day of change, but it is the banner of our revolution they take. And our own future is linked to this process of swift and turbulent change in many lands in the world. But nothing in any country touches us more profoundly, and nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own destiny than the revolution of the Negro American.

In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation: deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope.

In our time change has come to this Nation, too. The American Negro, acting with impressive restraint, has peacefully protested and marched, entered the courtrooms and the seats of government, demanding a justice that has long been denied. The voice of the Negro was the call to action. But it is a tribute to America that, once aroused, the courts and the Congress, the President and most of the people, have been the allies of progress.

LEGAL PROTECTION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Thus we have seen the high court of the country declare that discrimination based on race was repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore void. We have seen in 1957, and 1960, and again in 1964, the first civil rights legislation in this Nation in almost an entire century.

As majority leader of the United States Senate, I helped to guide two of these bills through the Senate. And, as your President, I was proud to sign the third. And now very soon we will have the fourth--a new law guaranteeing every American the right to vote.

No act of my entire administration will give me greater satisfaction than the day when my signature makes this bill, too, the law of this land.

The voting rights bill will be the latest, and among the most important, in a long series of victories. But this victory--as Winston Churchill said of another triumph for freedom--"is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society--to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.

FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH

But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities--physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.

To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.

PROGRESS FOR SOME

This graduating class at Howard University is witness to the indomitable determination of the Negro American to win his way in American life.

The number of Negroes in schools of higher learning has almost doubled in 15 years. The number of nonwhite professional workers has more than doubled in 10 years. The median income of Negro college women tonight exceeds that of white college women. And there are also the enormous accomplishments of distinguished individual Negroes--many of them graduates of this institution, and one of them the first lady ambassador in the history of the United States.

These are proud and impressive achievements. But they tell only the story of a growing middle class minority, steadily narrowing the gap between them and their white counterparts.

A WIDENING GULF

But for the great majority of Negro Americans-the poor, the unemployed, the uprooted, and the dispossessed--there is a much grimmer story. They still, as we meet here tonight, are another nation. Despite the court orders and the laws, despite the legislative victories and the speeches, for them the walls are rising and the gulf is widening.

Here are some of the facts of this American failure.

Thirty-five years ago the rate of unemployment for Negroes and whites was about the same. Tonight the Negro rate is twice as high.

In 1948 the 8 percent unemployment rate for Negro teenage boys was actually less than that of whites. By last year that rate had grown to 23 percent, as against 13 percent for whites unemployed.

Between 1949 and 1959, the income of Negro men relative to white men declined in every section of this country. From 1952 to 1963 the median income of Negro families compared to white actually dropped from 57 percent to 53 percent.

In the years 1955 through 1957, 22 percent of experienced Negro workers were out of work at some time during the year. In 1961 through 1963 that proportion had soared to 29 percent.

Since 1947 the number of white families living in poverty has decreased 27 percent while the number of poorer nonwhite families decreased only 3 percent.

The infant mortality of nonwhites in 1940 was 70 percent greater than whites. Twenty-two years later it was 90 percent greater.

Moreover, the isolation of Negro from white communities is increasing, rather than decreasing as Negroes crowd into the central cities and become a city within a city.

Of course Negro Americans as well as white Americans have shared in our rising national abundance. But the harsh fact of the matter is that in the battle for true equality too many--far too many--are losing ground every day.

THE CAUSES OF INEQUALITY

We are not completely sure why this is. We know the causes are complex and subtle. But we do know the two broad basic reasons. And we do know that we have to act.

First, Negroes are trapped--as many whites are trapped--in inherited, gateless poverty. They lack training and skills. They are shut in, in slums, without decent medical care. Private and public poverty combine to cripple their capacities.

We are trying to attack these evils through our poverty program, through our education program, through our medical care and our other health programs, and a dozen more of the Great Society programs that are aimed at the root causes of this poverty.

We will increase, and we will accelerate, and we will broaden this attack in years to come until this most enduring of foes finally yields to our unyielding will.

But there is a second cause--much more difficult to explain, more deeply grounded, more desperate in its force. It is the devastating heritage of long years of slavery; and a century of oppression, hatred, and injustice.

SPECIAL NATURE OF NEGRO POVERTY

For Negro poverty is not white poverty. Many of its causes and many of its cures are the same. But there are differences-deep, corrosive, obstinate differences--radiating painful roots into the community, and into the family, and the nature of the individual.

These differences are not racial differences. They are solely and simply the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice. They are anguishing to observe. For the Negro they are a constant reminder of oppression. For the white they are a constant reminder of guilt. But they must be faced and they must be dealt with and they must be overcome, if we are ever to reach the time when the only difference between Negroes and whites is the color of their skin.

Nor can we find a complete answer in the experience of other American minorities. They made a valiant and a largely successful effort to emerge from poverty and prejudice.

The Negro, like these others, will have to rely mostly upon his own efforts. But he just can not do it alone. For they did not have the heritage of centuries to overcome, and they did not have a cultural tradition which had been twisted and battered by endless years of hatred and hopelessness, nor were they excluded--these others--because of race or color--a feeling whose dark intensity is matched by no other prejudice in our society.

Nor can these differences be understood as isolated infirmities. They are a seamless web. They cause each other. They result from each other. They reinforce each other.

Much of the Negro community is buried under a blanket of history and circumstance. It is not a lasting solution to lift just one corner of that blanket. We must stand on all sides and we must raise the entire cover if we are to liberate our fellow citizens.

THE ROOTS OF INJUSTICE

One of the differences is the increased concentration of Negroes in our cities. More than 73 percent of all Negroes live in urban areas compared with less than 70 percent of the whites. Most of these Negroes live in slums. Most of these Negroes live together--a separated people.

Men are shaped by their world. When it is a world of decay, ringed by an invisible wall, when escape is arduous and uncertain, and the saving pressures of a more hopeful society are unknown, it can cripple the youth and it can desolate the men.

There is also the burden that a dark skin can add to the search for a productive place in our society. Unemployment strikes most swiftly and broadly at the Negro, and this burden erodes hope. Blighted hope breeds despair. Despair brings indifferences to the learning which offers a way out. And despair, coupled with indifferences, is often the source of destructive rebellion against the fabric of society.

There is also the lacerating hurt of early collision with white hatred or prejudice, distaste or condescension. Other groups have felt similar intolerance. But success and achievement could wipe it away. They do not change the color of a man's skin. I have seen this uncomprehending pain in the eyes of the little, young Mexican-American schoolchildren that I taught many years ago. But it can be overcome. But, for many, the wounds are always open.

FAMILY BREAKDOWN

Perhaps most important--its influence radiating to every part of life--is the breakdown of the Negro family structure. For this, most of all, white America must accept responsibility. It flows from centuries of oppression and persecution of the Negro man. It flows from the long years of degradation and discrimination, which have attacked his dignity and assaulted his ability to produce for his family.
This, too, is not pleasant to look upon. But it must be faced by those whose serious intent is to improve the life of all Americans.

Only a minority--less than half--of all Negro children reach the age of 18 having lived all their lives with both of their parents. At this moment, tonight, little less than two-thirds are at home with both of their parents. Probably a majority of all Negro children receive federally-aided public assistance sometime during their childhood.

The family is the cornerstone of our society. More than any other force it shapes the attitude, the hopes, the ambitions, and the values of the child. And when the family collapses it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale the community itself is crippled.

So, unless we work to strengthen the family, to create conditions under which most parents will stay together--all the rest: schools, and playgrounds, and public assistance, and private concern, will never be enough to cut completely the circle of despair and deprivation.

TO FULFILL THESE RIGHTS

There is no single easy answer to all of these problems.

Jobs are part of the answer. They bring the income which permits a man to provide for his family.
Decent homes in decent surroundings and a chance to learn--an equal chance to learn--are part of the answer.

Welfare and social programs better designed to hold families together are part of the answer.
Care for the sick is part of the answer.

An understanding heart by all Americans is another big part of the answer.

And to all of these fronts--and a dozen more--I will dedicate the expanding efforts of the Johnson administration.

But there are other answers that are still to be found. Nor do we fully understand even all of the problems. Therefore, I want to announce tonight that this fall I intend to call a White House conference of scholars, and experts, and outstanding Negro leaders--men of both races--and officials of Government at every level.
This White House conference's theme and title will be "To Fulfill These Rights."

Its object will be to help the American Negro fulfill the rights which, after the long time of injustice, he is finally about to secure.

To move beyond opportunity to achievement.

To shatter forever not only the barriers of law and public practice, but the walls which bound the condition of many by the color of his skin.

To dissolve, as best we can, the antique enmities of the heart which diminish the holder, divide the great democracy, and do wrong--great wrong--to the children of God.

And I pledge you tonight that this will be a chief goal of my administration, and of my program next year, and in the years to come. And I hope, and I pray, and I believe, it will be a part of the program of all America.

WHAT IS JUSTICE

For what is justice?

It is to fulfill the fair expectations of man.

Thus, American justice is a very special thing. For, from the first, this has been a land of towering expectations. It was to be a nation where each man could be ruled by the common consent of all--enshrined in law, given life by institutions, guided by men themselves subject to its rule. And all--all of every station and origin--would be touched equally in obligation and in liberty.

Beyond the law lay the land. It was a rich land, glowing with more abundant promise than man had ever seen. Here, unlike any place yet known, all were to share the harvest.

And beyond this was the dignity of man. Each could become whatever his qualities of mind and spirit would permit--to strive, to seek, and, if he could, to find his happiness.

This is American justice. We have pursued it faithfully to the edge of our imperfections, and we have failed to find it for the American Negro.

So, it is the glorious opportunity of this generation to end the one huge wrong of the American Nation and, in so doing, to find America for ourselves, with the same immense thrill of discovery which gripped those who first began to realize that here, at last, was a home for freedom.

All it will take is for all of us to understand what this country is and what this country must become.
The Scripture promises: "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out."
Together, and with millions more, we can light that candle of understanding in the heart of all America.
And, once lit, it will never again go out.

NOTE: The President spoke at 6:35 p.m. on the Main Quadrangle in front of the library at Howard University in Washington, after being awarded an honorary degree of doctor of laws. His opening words referred to Dr. James M. Nabrit, It., President of the University. During his remarks he referred to Mrs. Patricia Harris, U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg and former associate professor of law at Howard University.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by President Johnson on August 6, 1965; followed by...

Federal Executive Order #11246 (Affirmative Action) was signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson on September 24, 1965.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965. Volume II, entry 301, pp. 635-640. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966.

It's time to bring everything out in the open so the American people know what this Obama Administration is trying to get us into with this dirty war against Syria.

Subject: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Reps Nolan, Gibson, & Welch: Reconvene Congress Immediately to Deal With Syrian Crisis

News from the Office of

Minnesota’s Eighth District Congressman Rick Nolan

Bipartisan call to President Obama and House Leadership

Reps Nolan, Gibson, & Welch: Reconvene Congress Immediately to Deal with Syrian Crisis

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Contact: Steve Johnson at 202-570-5440 or steve.johnson@mail.house.gov

DULUTH, MN – President Obama and House leaders should call lawmakers back to Washington immediately to deal with the rapidly escalating possibility of U.S. military action against the government of Syria, Congressman Rick Nolan (D-MN) Congressman Chris Gibson (R-NY), and Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) urged today in a letter to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Said Nolan, “Before engaging our military forces in what would clearly be an act of war, the President is Constitutionally bound to seek authorization from Congress. And we are bound to consider the potential consequences, and advise and consent to any such action.”

Noting that the British Parliament is about to reconvene to debate the situation in Syria, the letter pointed to the Constitutional responsibility of both the President and Congress to consult with one another in matters leading to U.S. military action, as well as to an amendment to the recently passed 2014 Defense Appropriations Act stipulating that no funds be expended to assist armed combatants in Syria in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Congress passed that law in the closing days of the Vietnam War in an effort to assure that no future President would involve the United States in another military conflict without the consent of Congress.

Nolan, Rep. Gibson, an Iraq War veteran, and Rep. Welch point to issues Congress must discuss and resolve before any military intervention in Syria. “It is critical for us all to understand that once an attack in launched, there will be permanent and unavoidable consequences that require us to answer hard questions sooner or later,” the letter states.

Among those issues:

·         “Can we afford engagement in another costly armed conflict halfway around the world? As we approach a potential domestic crisis over the debt ceiling and our ability to fund our government and maintain essential services to our people, what urgent needs here at home will go unfunded and unattended in order to support military engagement in Syria? What resources would an attack on Syria require, and over what period of time?”

·         “Would a U.S. attack result in even greater use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government?”

·         “What collateral damage to innocent civilians would result from a U.S. attack on Syrian government forces? And how could additional civilian deaths and injuries, this time at America’s hand, be justified?”

·         “Would Arab and Islamic fundamentalists use U.S. involvement as a trigger to retaliate with acts of terror against our homeland?”

·         “Would Russia and Iran feel compelled to come to Syria’s aid, sparking a potential superpower confrontation by proxy?”

·         “Recognizing that we have no friends on any side of the Syrian conflict, would U.S involvement ultimately serve only to prolong the war and exacerbate the killing?”

“In our view, Congress must address these critical questions immediately, before any U.S. military engagement in Syria. Once again, we urge you to call us back into session with the utmost haste,” the letter concluded.

-30-

Full text of the letter as follows:

August 28, 2013

The Hon. Barack Obama

President of the United States

The Hon. John Boehner

Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives

The Hon. Nancy Pelosi

Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives

Dear President Obama, Speaker Boehner, and Leader Pelosi:

With events moving rapidly toward U.S. military involvement in Syria, and the British Parliament reconvening to debate and consider similar actions, we respectfully urge you to immediately end the recess and reconvene the United States Congress to meet our Constitutional obligation to address these matters.

Such action would be entirely consistent with the Radel Amendment to the 2014 Defense Appropriations Act, passed on July 24 by voice vote, stating that no funds shall be expended to assist armed combatants in Syria in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. As you know, the spirit and intent of that law is to assure that no President will involve the United States in military conflict without the consent of Congress.

Then as now, before engaging our military forces in what may well be an act of war, the President is Constitutionally bound to seek authorization from Congress. And we are bound to consider the potential consequences, and advise and consent to any such action.

It is critical for us all to understand that once an attack is launched, there will be permanent and unavoidable consequences that require us to answer hard questions sooner rather than later.

·         Can we afford engagement in another costly armed conflict halfway around the world? As we approach a potential domestic crisis over the debt ceiling and our ability to fund our government and maintain essential services to our people, what urgent needs here at home will go unfunded and unattended in order to support military engagement in Syria? What resources would an attack on Syria require, and over what period of time?

·         Would a U.S. attack result in even greater use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government?

·         What collateral damage to innocent civilians would result from a U.S. attack on Syrian government forces? And how could additional civilian deaths and injuries, this time at America’s hand, be justified?

·         Would Arab and Islamic fundamentalists use U.S. involvement as a trigger to retaliate with acts of terror against our homeland?

·         Would Russia and Iran feel compelled to come to Syria’s aid, sparking a potential superpower confrontation by proxy?

·         Recognizing that we have no friends on any side of the Syrian conflict, would U.S involvement ultimately serve only to prolong the war and exacerbate the killing?

In our view, Congress must address these critical questions immediately, before any U.S. military engagement in Syria. Once again, we urge you to call us back into session with the utmost haste.

Sincerely,

Richard Nolan

Member of Congress

Chris Gibson

Member of Congress

Peter Welch

Member of Congress

2447 Rayburn House Office Building – Washington, D.C. – 20515

Tell Obama: "We don't want another one of your dirty imperialist wars!"

In addition to a lexicon of oxymorons like "liberal imperialists," we are being told there are "anti-war Democrats."

Then we find out that these "anti-war Democrats" are only different from their "liberal imperialist" counterparts in that the "liberal imperialists" are advocating for war with Syria while the "anti-war Democrats" are pledged to speaking out against the war only after the cruise missiles have "landed."

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said he, "...hasn’t consulted with colleagues about how best to oppose attacks in Syria..."

I wonder when Grayson intends to talk with his colleagues?

“It’s a fact that its difficult sometimes to criticize a president who belongs to your party,” Grayson said. “That certainly is true and my feeling is that I never swore allegiance to the president, I swore to uphold the Constitution.”

Why is it more difficult to criticize a wrong when the injustice is being initiated by one's own party? It seems to me it should be easier.

Grayson, who said,"...responding to Syrian atrocities is not in the U.S. national interest," said, "...it’s likely that congressional Democrats will become more vocal about the Syria attacks after they take place. Having a strong opinion about it now," he said, "would require more research than from the most of his colleagues are able to do over the August recess."

Hmmmmm... too busy soliciting campaign contributions from Wall Street's merchants of death and destruction than to be bothered about a little thing like war.

“Members of Congress typically don’t take the time to examine the evidence independently,” Grayson said. “It’s probably asking a little bit too much to ask every member of Congress to examine all of the information.”

Really?

I bet if we had a working class based progressive people's party with candidates speaking out like British parliamentarian George Galloway, these "liberal imperialists" and "anti-war Democrats" would be considering Obama waging war on Syria a little differently... one example of where such people's politicians wouldn't even have to get elected in order to bring about real change. Being able to stop another dirty imperialist war wouldn't be such a shabby accomplishment.

In the meantime, without a political party for peace and social justice, we the people, are going to have to join the rest of the world in telling Obama, the "liberal imperialists" and the "anti-war Democrats:"

We don't want your dirty imperialist wars!

And we are going to have to speak in a way that these warmongers hear, and understand, we mean what we say--- and this means united action.

http://www.theroot.com/views/nice-speech-obama-what-about-policy

Nice Speech, Obama, but What About Policy? The president's speech was long on soaring rhetoric but stopped short of solutions that our community needs. By: Peniel E. Joseph | Posted: August 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

• 85
• 
  18
• 
  
• 
  
•  
• Email
• Text Size

 

President Obama addressing the audience at the March on Washington 50th anniversary (Getty Images)

(The Root) -- President Barack Obama's speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington forcefully articulated an expansive vision of economic justice and racial equality but stopped short of concrete policy proposals needed to turn words into deeds.

"Five decades ago today, Americans came to this honored place to lay claim to a promise made at our founding," Obama began. The president recounted the multicultural composition of demonstrators, who came by planes, buses and trains. In the "shadow of the Great Emancipator," more than a quarter of million Americans gathered to demand nothing less than the fundamental transformation of American democracy.

"But we would do well to remember that day also belonged to ordinary people whose names never appeared in history books and never got on TV," Obama continued. The president stressed the participation of anonymous black and white citizens who supported freedom's cause but would never be celebrated.

Obama quoted Frederick Douglass' axiom that "freedom is not just given" but is the byproduct of social and political struggle. This was an important part of the speech, especially since Douglass stands out as the most important black activist of the antebellum era, one who met with Abraham Lincoln three times and remained both a supporter and critic of the president.

But where were the specifics that would have truly honored the March on Washington? The 250,000 people who gathered 50 years ago were looking for specific solutions, not just soaring rhetoric. Where was the president's promise to sign a series of executive orders that would focus on anti-poverty efforts or increase access to higher education? Or governmental action that perhaps could ease the transition of ex-offenders back into communities or promote jobs programs, especially in economically devastated urban and rural communities?

Indeed, parts of the speech sounded like a roll call of the pivotal events of the civil rights era: demonstrations, violence, arrests, the passage of civil rights and voting-rights legislation. While this acknowledgment is crucially important to educate a new generation of Americans about the sacrifice that was required to end Jim Crow, secure voting rights and transform the nation, it can also create a mythology of the past that prevents us from moving forward. From this perspective, the civil rights generation, led by Martin Luther King Jr., appears so extraordinary and special as to induce fear and paralysis over the possibility of ever matching or exceeding its success and achievements.

The Limits of Progress

"Because they kept marching, America changed," said Obama. "Because they marched, the civil rights law was passed. Because they marched, a voting-rights law was signed. Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed and Congress changed and yes, eventually the White House changed."

But it's worth asking the question in our own time: How much has actually changed? Certainly, there are more black elected officials than ever, most notably the president. And the numbers of black entertainers, celebrities and entrepreneurs dwarf those that existed in 1963. Yet black faces in higher places were only part of the dream advocated at the March on Washington.

The bad news about the state of black America remains stunning. There are more black Americans in jail today than 50 years ago. The black unemployment rate is higher, and the number of blacks living in poverty remains overwhelming. The aesthetics of American democracy have changed enough to include a black president. This victory, however, is not enough to hide the way in which institutional racism and its reverberations within poverty, violence, segregation, incarceration and illiteracy continue to proliferate.

The Obamas' move into the White House offers a compelling portrait of racial progress and change, but underneath this surface is the harsh reality that racial oppression continues -- in fact, flourishes -- in many parts of American society."On the battlefield of justice, men and women without wealth, title or fame would liberate us all," observed Obama. The president criticized those who "dismiss the magnitude of progress" as "dishonoring the courage" of martyrs including Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and King.

Obama candidly spoke of the need for vigilance to challenge racial discrimination in the criminal-justice system and new barriers to voting. This was the most powerful part of the speech, since the president has, through Attorney General Eric Holder, connected a passionate call for justice with concrete policy. The Justice Department's efforts to repeal voter-ID laws and wind down the war on drugs' racist impact on black incarceration offer an example of substance matching symbolism.

Obama conceded that, despite significant advances, black unemployment has grown since the march, "even as corporate profits soar." What the president called the "shadow of poverty" continues to negatively shape the life chances of millions of African Americans a half-century after King's "I Have a Dream" speech. But rather than offer to launch a new war on poverty or outline a new vision of a Great Society on the anniversary of King's iconic speech, the president remained silent about how to bridge the yawning disparity between the rich and the poor.

"We shouldn't fool ourselves; this task will not be easy," admitted the president. Obama cited growing economic inequality as the primary threat to fulfilling the promise of democracy envisioned in 1963.

Where Is the Government Action?

The president followed his critique of proliferating corporate power and the ignoring of the poor by chastising the tendency for "poverty to be an excuse for not parenting." This was an unfortunate aside, since it focused on individual behavior and, in the process, continued to pathologize black poverty. Poverty is a result of institutional and system inequality, and the sooner Obama realizes this fact, the closer we will come to formulating policy proposals and identifying government actions to address it (such as signing an executive order increasing the minimum wage of federal contract workers).

A nation rife with political, racial and economic divisions requires "courage" to form coalitions based as much on empathy as on politics. Young people "unconstrained by fear" helped to change America, said Obama. That same creative energy and thirst for freedom is what our contemporary moment requires.

Obama concluded his speech by describing Americans who raise their kids, serve their country and fight to end poverty and oppression as continuing the march. "That's the lesson of our past," said Obama, "in that in the face of impossible odds, our country can be changed."

The themes outlined in Obama's speech were appropriate, but the speech failed to offer up or edge toward any major public-policy proposals, so in that sense it represents a missed opportunity. His acknowledgment of the realities of institutional racism is important but not enough.

The 50th anniversary of the March on Washington offers the perfect moment for the kind of creative risks and strategic gambles that allowed the original march not only to be organized but also to flourish as a defining moment in American history. 

The president's speech correctly identified the march as a transformative moment in world history whose reverberation transcended color and reached beyond superficial geographical boundaries.

But the demonstrators came to the nation's capital in 1963 demanding new policies and laws to promote social justice. Without the policy and legislative changes that followed, the march would have rung hollow and would not be remembered today.

The dream outlined by King and given force by millions of protesters around the nation 50 summers ago required political action. Our own era requires no less. Moreover, presidents don't have to dream -- they can act with the full authority of the executive branch of government. It's time for Obama not just to praise the dreamer but to heed his words by enacting bold policy measures and executive orders that will finally, as King proclaimed 50 years ago, "make real the promise of democracy."

Peniel E. Joseph is founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy and a professor of history at Tufts University. Follow him on Twitter. The center will convene a National Dialogue on Race Day on Sept. 12, 2013, and invites all to join in the conversation. Follow the center on Twitter.

-- 

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

 

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell: 651-587-5541

Primary E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

E-mail: alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com

Blog: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/