Connect with us

Americas

George Washington’s Advice to Us Now

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

U.S. President George Washington’s final words to his fellow Americans, upon leaving office, are now even more timely than when he spoke them, but have been ignored in practise for many decades; and the most recently published popular book about that speech ignores the most enduringly important part, so this part of Washington’s Farewell Address will be quoted from here, and will be placed into its historical context, so as to make clear what the central meaning in that speech is for our times, and for all times.

John Avlon (former speechwriter for Rudolf Giuliani, and before that, schooled at Milton Academy and then Yale) was recently the Editor-in-Chief of the rabidly anti-Russian — or “neoconservative” — ‘news’ (or propaganda) site “The Daily Beast.” He issued on 10 January 2017, right before the neoconservative Donald Trump became President, Washington’s Farewell: The Founding Father’s Warning to Future Generations, which book is an extended essay on President George Washington’s famous Farewell Address. That work wins 4.5 out of 5 stars at Amazon, but I am not linking to it, because that book ignores what will be discussed in this brief article, which is the core of the speech that Avlon devotes 368 pages to butchering.

Here, then, is the key passage from Washington’s Farewell Address, in which our first (and — along with Lincoln and FDR, one of our three greatest) President actually had warned us against the neoconservative path, which our nation has been on ever since 24 February 1990 and the end of the USSR and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance. That’s the path of wars (such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine) (which some wags call “perpetual war for perpetual peace”) to conquer, first, all of Russia’s allies, and then finally (once Russia is thus thoroughly isolated), to conquer Russia itself — in other words, George Washington, when retiring from public life, warned us against Mr. Avlon’s own neoconservative foreign-affairs obsession: eternal enmity against Russia (President Washington warned us, instead, to avoid eternal enmity against any nation, including Russia, as is indicated in this passage, which Avlon’s trashy book ignores): 

Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Such “temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies” includes The Allies (England, Soviet Union and U.S.) during World War II, but certainly nothing after the Soviet Union and its communism and Warsaw Pact ended in 1991. The entire ‘Western Alliance’ — basically NATO plus Japan — is anti-American policies by the American aristocracy (controlling the U.S. Government) after 1991, and should therefore promptly terminate, and U.S. armed forces be withdrawn from all foreign countries, in accord with the will and intention of America’s democratic Founders including President Washington. Using the U.S. Defense Department, and the U.S. Treasury Department, as (which neoconservatives do) a vast welfare program for the super-wealthy owners of U.S. weapons-manufacturers and for U.S. and other mercenaries, is unauthorized by America’s Founders, and was explicitly condemned by George Washington.

If any U.S.-based international corporations need those foreign U.S. military bases, then they should pick up all of the government’s tab to pay for them, because that kind of ‘capitalism’ is mere imperialism, which is nothing that any of our Founding Fathers advocated — it’s un-American, in terms of the U.S. Constitution, and the men who wrote it.

AsAlexander Hamilton wrote on 9 January 1796, in defending the new Constitution, and especially its Treaty Clause: “I aver, that it was understood by all to be the intent of the provision [the Treaty Clause] to give to that power the most ample latitude to render it competent to all the stipulations, which the exigencies of National Affairs might require—competent to the making of Treaties of Alliance, Treaties of Commerce, Treaties of Peace and every other species of Convention usual among nations and competent in the course of its exercise to controul & bind the legislative power of Congress. And it was emphatically for this reason that it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two thirds of the Senate with the President being required to make a Treaty. I appeal for this with confidence.”

He went further: “It will not be disputed that the words ‘Treaties and alliances’ are of equivalent import and of no greater force than the single word Treaties. An alliance is only a species of Treaty, a particular of a general. And the power of ‘entering into Treaties,’ which terms confer the authority under which the former Government acted, will not be pretended to be stronger than the power ‘to make Treaties,’ which are the terms constituting the authority under which the present Government acts.” So: there can be no doubt that the term “treaty” refers to any and all types of international agreements. This was the Founders’ clear and unequivocal intent. No court under this Constitution possesses any power to change that, because they can’t change history.

Furthermore, the third President Thomas Jefferson said in his likewise-famous Inaugural Address, that there should be “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Jefferson’s comment there was also a succinct tip-of-the-hat to yet another major concern that the Founders had regarding treaties — that by discriminating in favor of the treaty-partners, they also discriminate against  non-partner nations, and so endanger “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,” which was the Founders’ chief goal in their foreign policies. But, the Founders’ chief concern was the mere recognition that treaties tend to be far more “permanent” and “entangling” than any purely national laws. This was the main reason why treaties need to be made much more difficult to become laws, and so the two-thirds-of-Senate requirement for passing-into-law any treaty was instituted as the Treaty-Clause, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2

Though this thinking — avoidance of favoritism in America’s foreign policies — was pervasive amongst the creators of America’s democracy (or people’s republic), America’s newly developed aristocracy subsequently in the 20th Century targeted elimination of the two-thirds-of-Senate requirement, because it’s an impediment toward their re-establishing the aristocracy that the American Revolution itself had overthrown and replaced by this people’s republic. And, the big chance for the aristocracy to restore its position via an imperial President, and so to extend their empire beyond our own shores, came almost two hundred years after America’s founding; it came in 1974, which was when a law finally became passed by Congress allowing some treaties to emerge as U.S. law with only the normal 50%+1 majority in the Senate (unConstitutional though that is). Without that Nixonian law, George Herbert Walker Bush’s NAFTA wouldn’t have been able to become law under Bill Clinton in 1993, and Barack Obama’s TPP with Asia and TTIP with Europe wouldn’t have stood even a chance of becoming law in 2016. Both of Obama’s proposed mega-treaties were designed to isolate and weaken both Russia and China in international trade, but all that Obama ended up with, before his leaving office, was economic sanctions against Russia for its having accepted the desire of the vast majority of Crimeans to rejoin with Russia after Obama’s Ukrainian coup overthrew the democratically elected President of next-door Ukraine, who had received 75% of the vote within Crimea.

Avlon’s website, as a mainstream neoconservative ‘news’ site, opposed Donald Trump as being insufficiently against Russia. They actually urged punishing Russia for Trump’s election! What would George Washington think about having a person (Avlon) so partisan against George Washington’s vision for our country as that, becoming the popular modern ‘interpreter’ of his famous Farewell Address? Would he like that? What would George Washington, and America’s other early Presidents, think of a country which advances such a person as that, to be a commentator and host at CNN, Editor-in-Chief at The Daily Beast, and a favorably received ‘historian’ of the United States? 

This is certainly not the nation that they founded. This ship — now become the wrecker of nations and aspiring global dictator — abandoned its home port in 1945, and hasn’t returned ever since.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Why Trump Will Probably Win Re-Election

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Throughout this election-season in the United States, there have been many indications that the stupid voters who chose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in 2016 are doing it yet again and chose Joe Biden over Sanders, and that they thus handed Trump the victory in 2016 and are repeating that performance in 2020. A new poll shows it clearly.

Just like happened in 2016 when Democratic Party voters who were predominantly Blacks and/or seniors swallowed the propaganda-line from the billionaire-controlled ‘news’-media against the electability of Sanders, those voters have done it yet again and thus are re-electing Trump by having passed over the only candidate who could have beaten him: Sanders. (A 22 June 2016 Bloomberg News report right after Hillary had won the nomination headlined “Nearly Half of Sanders Supporters Won’t Support Clinton”. Of course, that was being reported too late for the voters to be able to do anything about it; and this is how the billionaires work.)

Unlike Biden and Hillary, who have had broad support but tepid support, Sanders has had support which is not only passionate but is also broader than does Trump. A close reading of all of the polls, both in 2016 and in 2020, indicates that the passion-factor is crucial to electoral victory (bringing a candidate’s voters to the polls, or “turnout”) but hasn’t been receiving the attention it deserves in the billionaires’ ‘news’-media; and, therefore, the stupidest voters haven’t even noticed it, but went instead for what they had been deceived to think ‘the more-electable’ candidates: Hillary in 2016, and Biden in 2020.

This fact is now receiving yet another powerful confirmation in an ABC News poll published on March 29th, headlined “Biden consolidates support, but trails badly in enthusiasm: Poll”

It says:

strong enthusiasm for Biden among his supporters – at just 24% – is the lowest on record for a Democratic presidential candidate in 20 years of ABC/Post polls. More than twice as many of Trump’s supporters are highly enthusiastic about supporting him, 53%.

It’s even worse than it was for Clinton in 2016:

There’s déjà vu in these results: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found herself in largely the same position four years ago. She, too, had a slim lead among Democrats for the nomination and ran essentially evenly with Trump among registered voters. And she lagged in enthusiasm, with a low of 32% very enthusiastic in September 2016. Biden is 8 points under that mark now.

Furthermore — and also confirming earlier polls — 

Eighty-three percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning seniors prefer Biden over Sanders, up 63 points from February; two-thirds of blacks say the same, a 34-point increase.

Eighty percent of Sanders backers say they’ll vote for Biden against Trump; as noted, 15% say they’d back Trump. (This is familiar: Twenty percent of Sanders supporters said they’d vote for Trump in spring 2016.)

How bad was it in 2016? It definitely accounted for Hillary’s losing to Trump in the three crucial states: Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Although the early estimate that “Nearly Half of Sanders Supporters Won’t Support Clinton” turned out to have been an over-estimate, the final real figures still were quite substantial, and far more than accounted for Hillary’s losses in each one of those three crucial states. So: they’re doing it again. And maybe they’ll blame Russia, and blame Sanders, for it, like Hillary did in 2016. A con-job requires not just a deceiver but a believer. But to be conned repeatedly — that is plain stupid.

(The lying New York Times headlined misleadingly on 28 March 2017, “A 2016 Review: Turnout Wasn’t the Driver of Clinton’s Defeat”, and reported that, “it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump,” and hid the fact that, as McClatchy newspapers headlined on 1 May 2017, “Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost” and that this reason was that “Obama-Trump voters, in fact, effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost.” Those voters did “turn out,” but for Trump instead of for her — and, yet, the Times said it wasn’t a “Turnout” problem. Of course, they simply lied. This is how billionaire-controlled media deceive enough of the stupid in order to sway ‘elections’: they do it by misreporting the reality.)

The stupid never learn from prior experience, but only repeat prior experience. There is a difference between learning and repeating. Repeating can be done merely by memorizing, but learning requires real intelligence.

Those suckers chose the candidate they had been spoon-fed to misbelieve would have the higher likelihood of beating Trump — the propagandized lie (and it was a lie) being that Hillary (and now Biden) would be more electable than Sanders. This stupidity is the reason why Americans in the coming November 3rd election will be choosing between two candidates both of whom are — themselves — stupid, incompetent, and disastrous for everyone except perhaps their own billionaire sponsors, who had financed their campaigns.

The idiots want America to be run like a business, but the problem is that it already is. And to the stockholders in it (mainly the billionaires), their own benefits are vastly more important than the benefits to the public — the billionaires’ corporations’ employees and consumers — the taxpayers (other than themselves — if they even pay taxes, or at least taxes that are higher than the subsidies they receive from the government). Collectively, the billionaires get the government that they have bought, and everybody else gets the scraps that are left over. And this is how it happens.

What could turn things around for Biden? Over 100,000 U.S. coronavirus deaths could, even if Biden would have handled the crisis just as atrociously as Trump did. (Of course, Sanders wouldn’t have, but apparently he’s gone from the contest now.)

Continue Reading

Americas

Coronavirus is Trump’s most important electoral rival

Published

on

The Earth is intertwined with space in various group, ethnic, religious, national, and other forms. National spaces within countries are the most important phenomena shaping the geographic space of the Earth. These spaces have been divided into more than 200 countries in the form of different democratic and non-democratic political systems as dominant spaces in different forms. Citizens in each of these countries, especially in democratic countries, are struggling to elect people to serve as political directors of the President and Prime Minister and representatives of the political space in order to organize the best program for ordering the country. Although sometimes in the specific geographical environment and the shortcomings of how people vote, they have a profound effect on the way of some candidates vote, but with the transition to calm and a return to calm, the geography and timing of citizens’ responsibilities and duties expects the President-elect, Prime Minister, etc, not only to work well in that constituency-based environment, such as economic problems, but also in all areas able to manage and advance geographic space as an active and powerful actor. As a matter of fact, any lack of planning in various areas, especially in security issues, would be a disadvantage not only for citizens but also as an impediment to sending political leaders to space.

In the meantime, the current conditions on the global space caused by the coronavirus in various ways have targeted the security of geographical spaces and citizens. Citizens expect their managers to have the best strategy and plan to control and cope with the crisis. There are two types of clashes between politicians. There are a group of real politicians who, with their systematic and scientific minds, understand the situation and try to enter the country with the least challenge and cross the geographical space of their country with the least difficulty, the least social and cultural harm. Among them is the German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, who, as a real politician based on understanding the situation, responded quickly, removing the country’s geographical space from a passive confrontation with coronavirus and preventing strategy, to a large extent control these issues and problems within the country.

On the other hand, some politicians who are not real and have been able to enter into the political management of space in various forms of bargaining, surfing, etc. in the face of coronavirus, have taken the most passive plan and strategy in the form of denial, failure and seriousness. And so they have taken their geographic space to crisis. In the meantime, it is worth mentioning the US president Trump who dealt with cronavirus unintentionally and led the country into a crisis. With this kind of confrontation with Trump, coronavirus (of course, among other things) no longer seems to have any hope of an upcoming election.

Overall, we hope that citizens in different countries will opt for real politicians, because the wrong choices based on looks, decorations, fleeting needs, etc. will not only regulate the geographical space of their lives, but also will cause widespread mismanagement and even shaping, it will provide them with a life of insecurity. In today’s complex global conditions we need real politicians not politician players in the local, national, regional and even global arena. In this way, this vast interconnected can be organized and provided security and peace for its citizens.

Continue Reading

Americas

Covid-19: Why the US is hit so hard?

Published

on

Negative approach, delayed actions, and wrong policies resulted in making the US the most hard-hit country in the world. With confirmed cases 104,256, the US has surpassed the rest of the world. The second highest cases were reported 86,498 in Italy and third 81,394 in China. Italy is a country with the highest number of deaths 9,134, Spain5, 138, and China 3,295.

Globally, the confirmed Coronavirus cases have reached 597,501, and deaths 27,371. The figure kept on increasing rapidly over time. This figure is not close to facts, as the number of tests conducted are very much limited. Even it is beyond the capacity of the Developed World to test each suspect individually, no way to talk about the developing world and underdeveloped countries. It has already entered into a horrible threat to humankind.

Although the Trump Administration has taken good initiative now, but the delay has caused enormous damage already. In time decisions and right policies might have saved a lot. 2 Trillion Dollars package is a very positive step, and other measures are Encouraging. The US is one of the largest economies, the wealthiest nation, and most developed and advanced in Science & Technology. The US can overcome the epidemic. Just have to bear a high cost only.

The Chinese government and Chinese people have been brave as they took on this formidable task. Since the beginning, they fought against the outbreak, put people’s life and health first. They acted according to the overall principle of shoring up confidence, strengthening unity, ensuring science-based control and treatment, and imposed targeted measures. China mobilized the whole nation, set up collective control and treatment mechanisms, and acted with openness and transparency.  China has put up a strenuous struggle and made tremendous sacrifices. Now the situation in China is moving steadily in a positive direction with very few new cases and deaths.

Last two months, China was struggling to overcome epidemic and focused only on its goal to save human lives and eliminate the virus. China ignore all criticism, pressures, and bashing from the outside world and concentrated all energies to fight against Covid-19. China mobilized all national resources, supported by the public, and finally won over the epidemic.

When China was over-engaged in its war against Coronavirus, the US administration was engaged, blaming China, bashing China, criticizing China, and trying to undermine China. Using the derogatory remarks and media was publishing anti-China sentiments in the form of articles or cartoons. Humiliating Chinese nationals in the western world were witnessed. But could not harm China at all. President US administration wasted time unintentionally.

The Trump Administration also failed to help out its allies at the most challenging moment, when Italy, France, UK, Spain were at a very initial stage. If, since the beginning, the US has helped its allies, it might not spread so widely and may not reach the US.

It is true, no single country was prepared for such an awkward situation, and no single country trounce the outbreak. But collectively, it should have been suppressed in Wuhan only. There is a shortage of Masks, Testing Kits, Ventilators, and Sanitizers, etc. If the whole world pooled all possible resources and helped China, the situation must be different today. I think the evacuation of foreigners from China has caused a lot of damage too. The hostility, selfishness, and casual attitude toward China proved wrong.

China is helping many countries, especially the hard-hit countries like Italy, Spain, Iran, etc. China is donating medical supplies, and dispatching medical teams to support the respective government to fight against the epidemic. Chinese proved-experience can be used as guidelines. China is sharing its experience publically with everyone.

Virus is not bias, do not recognize boundaries, race, religion, or ethnicity. Why we discriminate against each other, I believe it is time to think seriously and unite to defeat any epidemic.

 I believe, if the US administration keeps politics aside, and think for humanity, realign its approach and correct its policies, still can recover. Late, but better than never.

The recommendations put forward by the virtual G-20 Summit held on 26 March 2020, are pertinent and can be implemented immediately. I am sure the US congress is full of wise people, either from the opposition or ruling side, may ensure the right steps toward defeating the epidemic globally. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

East Asia9 mins ago

BRI to Health Silk Route: How COVID-19 is Changing Global Strategic Equations?

The beginning of 2020 brought a wild card entry into global strategic equations in the form of Coronavirus Pandemic, with...

Newsdesk2 hours ago

The World Bank Strengthens Support to Argentina’s Most Vulnerable Families

The World Bank Board of Directors today approved a new US$ 300 million operation to support Argentina’s efforts to strengthen...

Americas4 hours ago

Why Trump Will Probably Win Re-Election

Throughout this election-season in the United States, there have been many indications that the stupid voters who chose Hillary Clinton...

International Law6 hours ago

Affixing China’s Liability for COVID-19 spread

Authors: Manini Syali and Alisha Syali* The article analyses whether International Environmental Law can be invoked for making China liable...

Europe8 hours ago

Covid-19: Macron’s conflicting crisis communication

2020 started in France with a strike from the SNCF national railway workers who were massively protesting against the ongoing...

Terrorism10 hours ago

The Threat of Nuclear Jihad in Central Asia and Russia

Citizens of five central states have joined the ISIS networks to take the war into the region and inflict fatalities...

International Law13 hours ago

A Recipe for Disaster: Pakistan’s ‘Migratory’ Response to COVID-19 in Pakistan- administered Kashmir

Authors: Aaditya Vikram Sharma and Prakash Sharma* Various news outlets have reported that Pakistan is moving patients from Punjab to...

Trending