Friday, May 10, 2024

What’s Really Going on with the Teamsters and with TDU?


 Facebook

 MAY 9, 2024

As Shawn Fain has acknowledged, Teamsters for a Democratic Union helped to inspire and provide a model for the Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD) caucus and for the United Auto Workers membership more generally. TDU’s more than forty-year history of rank-and-file organizing, opposition to corrupt union officials, and struggles for union democracy and alternative leadership provided the playbook. TDU had won the right to one member, one vote, rather than a rigged convention, and Fain and the UAW also fought for and won that right too. Both of us, the authors of this article, are proud of our years in TDU, of the contributions we made to the organization, and we admire the rank-and-filers who continue that work today. We’re glad to see that it has had a positive influence on the UAW and on some other unions as well.

All of this makes us even more disturbed and concerned to see TDU’s recent change over the last few years as it has subordinated itself to Sean O’Brien’s administration. TDU has called this relationship a “coalition” and suggested that it has made possible progressive developments, represented above all by the election of O’Brien and the 2023 UPS contract. So argued Ken Paff in a recent article in JacobinWe disagree. We believe that O’Brien represents a continuation of the Teamster old guard, a business unionist who seeks labor peace, and a leader who is a threat to a democratic and militant labor movement. His UPS contract left many behind and he has misled and deceived the members. Beyond that, O’Brien’s gestures of support for Donald Trump and other MAGA Republicans, suggest a turning away from the democratic, egalitarian, and inclusive values that inspired TDU.

In 2021, there were two Hoffa administration Teamster vice-presidents running for president of the international union: Steve Vairma and Sean O’Brien.  After a very close election in 2016, in which the Teamsters United Slate led by Fred Zuckerman and Tim Sylvester actually won the U.S. vote but lost by a few thousand votes when Canadian ballots were added, it was more than obvious that Hoffa would not run again. The story told by O’Brien, and repeated by TDU, was that he was removed by Hoffa as head of the UPS negotiations in 2018, because he wanted to be more aggressive with UPS and Hoffa did not. We’re to believe it was a coincidence that he then found himself in the enviable position of running as an insurgent against another of Hoffa’s lieutenants, Steve Vairma. Vairma as Hoffa’s “anointed one” found himself in the unique position of having to defend the 2018 contract, that he had nothing to do with while Sean O’Brien railed against the agreement that he was largely responsible for.

The hookup with Fred Zuckerman was hardly by accident, the 2016 campaign had given Zuckerman national name recognition and a bridge to TDU, that had previously considered O’Brien among the very worst of the old guard. TDU provided a critical structure and member access for any potential national challenge. Zuckerman, who had never wanted the top spot on the slate, including in 2016, was quite satisfied with the second position of General Secretary Treasurer and presto the O’Brien-Zuckerman, OZ slate was formed. Convincing the TDU Steering committee to go along with the gag was more difficult. For years O’Brien had been relentlessly criticized and labeled a bully by TDU particularly after his suspension for threatening teamster members. When Ken Paff raised the notion a full three years before the election there was significant opposition but one year later with committee members worn down and options more limited, they relented and TDU soon endorsed OZ a full two years prior to the election. Since it endorsed O’Brien, TDU has become his uncritical supporter, even when he has failed to fight for the members, suppressed the members rights, and engaged in questionable practices. Since then, TDU has given up its historic role as critic of bad leaders and defender of the rank-and-file.

The Teamsters Under O’Brien

O’Brien’s election has meant an expanded media operation and a more militant language and tone. While the tone and volume of rhetoric has changed a closer look reveals a reality that isn’t much different for teamster members.  An example is the UPS negotiations themselves. One of the big reforms touted by O’Brien and TDU is expanded negotiating committees with rank-and-file member participation.   The idea is that members in bargaining know what the jobs are really like and can also improve communication and keep members informed on the shop floor.  However, in the recent UPS negotiations the Teamster negotiating committees at the local and national level all had to sign nondisclosure agreements and faced expulsion from the committee if the chair felt they were in violation. NDAs created the same kind of “Brownout” that TDU raised hell about before, but not a peep from TDU about the mandatory NDA’s. The union’s proposals were not allowed to be shared with members, creating a situation where management and the union committee knew what had been proposed and the only people kept in the dark were Teamster members who work at UPS. Under Sean O’Brien the Teamsters are light years away from “open bargaining”.

After the contract had been negotiated in secret, O’Brien hired Berlin Rosen, a top public relations firm to handle the marketing campaign to sell the contract to the members. The union spent a tidy $1.2 million with Berlin Rosen in 2023, most of it to get the job done at UPS with a massive PR barrage. Again, a far cry from a democratic process of discussion and debate of the contract’s terms.

With the new contract in hand, O’Brien announced, “Our members just ratified the most lucrative agreement the Teamsters have ever negotiated at UPS. This contract will improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers. Teamsters have set a new standard and raised the bar for pay, benefits, and working conditions in the package delivery industry. This is the template for how workers should be paid and protected nationwide, and nonunion companies like Amazon better pay attention.” In fact, however, the contract failed to improve the situation of part-time workers, created a new tier of lower-paid workers, and reduced the money available for health and welfare and pension benefits.

Let’s start with the question of part-timers. As Kim Moody, the former director and editor of Labor Notes, wrote in his article, “Why the Rush to Settle?”

The promised “end of part-time poverty” was not achieved for all, and while two-tier pay for drivers were eliminated, the hourly gap between part-timers and full-time workers was not closed, and a two-tier setup was created for part-timers.

And Sam Gindin, the Canadian labor activist, in his article “Missed Opportunity? A Closer Look at the Teamster-UPS Agreement” suggests, just as Moody did, that the contract appeared at first blush to be a victory:

Against the excited headlines about “ending two-tiers,” the reprehensible secondary status for part-time workers – generally the “inside” workers in the warehouses and a majority of the union members at UPS – remains firmly in place, and the promise of more full-time jobs is little more than a paper commitment.

In addition to failing to end the part-timer’s second-class status, O’Brien permitted the creation of a new tier of lower-paid workers. Those hired after August 1, 2023 will earn less.

Although O’Brien has claimed there were no concessions, for the majority there will be significant cuts to Health and Pension Funds. The Teamsters Western Conference Pension Fund (the unions largest fund) will see a dramatic change from previous contracts. Historically, and in at least the last three UPS contracts negotiated by Hoffa, there was $1.00 per hour to be split for healthcare and pension, with the first money to go to pay for increases in the cost of healthcare and whatever was left into pension. That $1.00 has now been decreased to $.50 which means little and probably no money will be left for the pension fund. That loss from the largest teamster employer and largest contributor will have a serious impact on the future of the Fund and also encourage other employers to get the same deal, doing further damage.  Had O’Brien simply maintained the previous dollar negotiated by Hoffa, members would see literally hundreds more dollars in their monthly checks when they retire.

O’Brien also has a practice of misleading or misinforming the members, or trying to keep them ignorant of developments. For example, a year ago, when O’Brien tweeted a message taking credit for organizing 206,000 new members saying “we’re just getting started.” Teamster-Link (now t-union link), an open forum for the membership, was there to prove him wrong and forced the refiling of updated LM-2 reports showing a gain of about 3,200 new members.

Or to take another example, this one in the failure to inform the members category. The Teamsters settled a law suit charging O’Brien’s administration with racial discrimination in the firing of 13 Black and Hispanic staff members from the organizing department. As reported in The Guardian newspaper, the suit claimed that, “In total, Teamsters terminated 72.73% of the department’s staffers who were people of color, while firing only 28.57% of white staffers. Teamsters then proceeded to hire new staff members who were 73.33% white.” The suit also stated that O’Brien “publicly humiliated” the plaintiffs, claiming they were fired because they were “bad apples” and were “lazy.”

 “Our dues money has to pay this $2.9m lawsuit, because our general president racially discriminated against workers. That’s just not fair,” said the Teamsters Local 623 secretary-treasurer and principal officer, Richard Hooker Jr. “It’s a slap in the face of black and brown people, which make up a large contingency of this organization.” So The Guardian reports.

These Black and Hispanic organizers were among 150 to 180 terminations of Teamster employees on the day O’Brien took office. Terminations were accomplished by email with no severance, no healthcare and no opportunity to retrieve personal effects. One expects that when a new administration comes to power it will get rid the old regime’s Division Directors and policy-makers, however there aren’t that many Directors and policy-makers, these were mostly staff and professionals with no political position in the union.

O’Brien claimed in a California speech in September to have stopped the threat of AI and Robotics at UPS.  In the meantime, layoff announcements have been issued to thousands of teamsters around the country due to low “volume.” What makes this different from other layoffs is the accompanying WARN notices (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification), which are required notices in permanent closure situations. When the volume returns, these facilities will be closed and the work diverted to automated facilities. UPS CEO Carol Tome has stated her intention to automate “everything” and boasts about retaining the ability to do so under the new contract. Fortune magazineran an article several months ago with this title: “UPS just opened a giant new warehouse where 3,000 robots will do most of the work: ‘It’s a linchpin of our strategy.’” His statements aside, O’Brien offers no strategy to stop this process of AI’s and robots’ elimination of jobs at UPS or anywhere else.

In the past, Teamsters for a Democratic Union would have taken up issues such as those raised above. But TDU’s “coalition” with O’Brien has led to the organization’s total loss of independence and subordination to the O’Brien administration.

All of these issues and others led three retired Teamster activists and former officers with democratic reform credentials—Tom Leedham, Tim Sylvester, and Bill Zimmerman—to establish TeamsterLink in January of 2023 as a platform where Teamster officers and rank&filers could share information and discuss union issue. When the site proved to be popular, O’Brien hired the Nixon-Peabody law firm—known for union busting and its representation of Donald Trump—to sue TeamsterLink, on the charge of using the copyrighted word “Teamster.”  The charge is preposterous because the term has been used by all sorts of organizations, from local ball clubs to Teamsters for a Democratic Union. The firm sent a threatening “cease and desist” letter that was followed by threats to Apple and Google if they refused to shutdown T-Link.

Faced with the reality that O’Brien was willing to use member’s dues money to stifle free speech in the union, the retirees changed the name to T-Union Link continuing their mission to provide an open forum where teamster members and officers can express their views on any teamster related subject without fear of retaliation.

TDU and Politics

Paff reiterates in his essay, TDU’s historic position of avoiding partisan politics. Back in the 1970s when talking to Teamsters, TDU organizers frequently said, “We don’t care if you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or a socialist, a Baptist or a Catholic. We’re all rank-and-file Teamster activists here.” We feared that criticizing or endorsing Democratic or Republican party candidates at the national level would divide TDU whose members include big-city dockworkers and drivers who were mostly Democrats and Southern and Western road-drivers many of whom were Republican. Many of us believed that what was really needed was a new working-class party, a labor party to fight for workers’ interests. But for fear of creating divisions, we didn’t raise that either.

We did not then see much difference between Republicans and Democrats. Today, however, with Donald Trump as the Republican presidential candidate, the situation is fundamentally different. Trump is a union-buster.  He supports National right to work which would crush the Teamsters and other unions. We’ve seen the appointments he would make to the National Labor Relations Board, the referee in labor relations. The last time he appointed members to the Board they were management attorneys. Trump is not only a union buster, but also a racist, anti-immigrant, misogynist who represents everything that labor opposes both in the union movement and in society. We know that Trump and some of his supporters say that he’s not a racist, but the racists sure think he is and have become his most fervent supporters.

Trump is not just another Republican. He organized and inspired an insurrection at the Capitol in an attempt to remain in office despite losing the election. He is a dangerous authoritarian who threatens to become a dictator and to suppress the democratic rights that are essential to worker organizing. Treating November 2024 as just another presidential election and treating Trump as just another candidate is a serious and potentially disastrous mistake.

O’Brien, however, treats Trump as a legitimate contender for the presidency, which has infuriated many Teamster leaders and members. O’Brien invited all presidential candidates, including Trump to meet with union leaders, but he also went to Mar-a-Lago to talk with Trump and be photographed with him giving a thumbs up. Teamster vice-president John Palmer refused to attend the meeting with Trump who he called “a scab, union buster, and insurrectionist.” In recent decades the Teamsters gave primarily to Democrats, but now O’Brien’s Teamsters give to both Biden and Trump.  Unlike O’Brien, Shawn Fain of the UAW has had no trouble in calling Trump “a scab,” adding that, “Trump doesn’t give a damn about working class people.”.

Following O’Brien’s meetings with Trump, the union gave $45,000 to the Republican National Committee, the maximum allowable donation. The Teamsters have also given $5,000 to Trump supporter Josh Hawley for his re-election campaign to the U.S. Senate from Missouri.  Jim Kabel a former top Teamster official in the state wrote an op-ed opposing Hawley as does the Missouri labor movement that knows him best. For decades, TDU maintained its neutrality in national politics. This year such neutrality could turn out to be suicidal.

Who Gets the Bird?

Paff argues that this coalition with O’Brien has made it possible for TDU and other activists to engage in organizing as never before. While he doesn’t describe this crowd, the activists include not only TDU and Labor Notes, but also the young activists of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). A number of DSA members have gotten Teamsters jobs and become TDU and Teamster activists. The idealistic young socialists in the union today believe O’Brien gives them opportunities to grow and extend their influence. Maybe, but the TDU and DSA coalition with O’Brien makes one think of other such alliances in the past that proved problematic.

In the 1930s, John L. Lewis, the conservative, business unionist who was then president of the United Mine Workers (UMW)—a conservative but with a keen appreciation of the restlessness among workers that had developed in that period—could see an opportunity to organize an industrial union in the steel industry. Lewis—who had always been viciously anti-Communist—hired a number of Communist Party members to work for the Steel Workers Organizing Committee. When one of his staff asked him why he was doing such a thing he replied, “Who gets the bird? The hunter or the dog.”

Lewis and his appointed head of the committee, Philip Murray, used the Communists to organize, and though the Communists gained influence in some locals, Lewis and Murray kept complete control of the union. The United Steel Workers was founded in 1942 and Murray became its first president; he also served from 1940 to 1952, as president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), the federation of all of the industrial unions (steel, auto, electrical, etc.) Then in 1949, as CIO president, Murray carried out the expulsion of Communist-led unions and the purge of Communists from the Steelworkers. The hunter still held the birds and the dogs had been driven out.

There may be a lesson here for the contemporary left. At any moment, O’Brien could turn on the TDU and DSA activists and drive them out of the union. Progressives, while they may enter into coalitions, must always retain their independence within the labor movement and in society at large.

For decades TDU played a progressive role, one that made it an inspiration to other unions such as the UAW. If it is to continue to do so, TDU’s leaders would be wise to change course, to reestablish the organization’s independence and to report more accurately on the issues facing the union.

Tom Leedham has been a Teamster since 1977 and has served at every level of Teamster leadership. He was TDU’s candidate for Teamster President opposing James Hoffa, Jr. in three elections in 1998, 2001 and 2006. Last year, together with two other long-time Teamster activists, Tim Silvester and Bill Zimmerman, he created T-Union Link (https://t-unionlink.org/) to provide a site for Teamster rank-and-filers to find information and discuss Teamster issues. 


Dan La Botz was a truck driver in Chicago in the 1970s and a founding member of Teamsters for a Democratic Union in 1976. He is the author of Rank-and-File Rebellion: Teamsters for a Democratic Union  (1991) and of the essay “The Tumultuous Teamsters of the 1970s” in Rebel Rank and File: Labor Militancy and Revolt from Below During the Long 1970s (2010). He lives in Brooklyn, New York

The Last Regime Change and the Left’s

Lateness in Opposing Biden’s Wars


 
 MAY 9, 2024


FacebookTwitterRedditEmailPhotograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Around the world over the past six months, many ordinary and horrified spectators of the Gaza catastrophe have been left wondering why the US acts as if handicapped in its efforts to rein in its client state Israel, even as North America’s international standing dwindles abroad, while Biden loses popularity at home and elections loom. Onlookers were left stymied and confused by the US president’s dismissal of swing-state Michigan’s “Abandon Biden” movement, as Arab-American voters fiercely hit back against what Dearborn MI mayor Abdullah Hammoud called Biden’s authoritarianism, hemorrhaging the president in his party’s primaries—just as the campaign had vocally promised to do should Biden continue on his path of docility in the face of Netanyahu’s violations of the laws of war while receiving unprecedented American aid. Biden’s displays of weakness before the Israeli leadership’s defiant ingratitude towards its American benefactor has alarmed conspiracy theorists, who point to Biden’s pusillanimity, and to Blinken’s genuflections as proof of the antisemitic belief that Israel, despite being the US’s dependent client-state and privileged subject, actually directs US policy as a whole. It is no surprise that such ideas would at once confirm both the median antisemite’s delirium along with Netanyahu’s, whose megalomania once famously inspired Bill Clinton to muse, “Who the fuck does this guy think he is—who’s the superpower around here?” after the two leaders met in 1996. Megalomania is also a trait that characterized Netanyahu’s role-model Ariel Sharon. Such hubris is what makes many Netanyahu supporters indifferent to a very real danger to Israel and to the diaspora: the American leadership’s feigned impotence whenever the world clamors for Washington to rein in Israel, leaves a misleading impression on vast audiences: an indelible memory that will undoubtedly fuel future antisemitism, by projecting the illusion that Israel rules the US, rather than the other way around.

 The view from inside Israel, even today, is the inverse: center-right newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth featured a cartoon that would have gotten its illustrator fired had it appeared in the Western press, showing a dwarfish Netanyahu arm-wrestle a towering Biden, with the PM’s fist like a baby’s wrapped around the senile giant’s finger. In the same paper, columnist Nahum Barnea wrote “Netanyahu has been dealing with America the way a spoiled teenager deals with his parents: perpetual rebellion, perpetual insults and perpetual scandals.”

 Biden’s flaccid condemnation of Netanyahu is not only “weak”, but also performative: from judging massacres as “over the top” in the comedic language of SNL, to reportedly calling Netanyahu “an asshole” privately, as Blinken came back from self-humiliating junket-visits to the Middle East. American claims of a “rules-based order” are no longer taken seriously even by the usual lapdogs among Europe’s elites like Josep Borrell.

Nobody has thus far pointed out the possibility that the US administration supported the Gaza campaign over the past grueling months because it saw this war as its last chance to doggedly push through at least one successful overseas regime-change, before the end of both Biden’s uninspiring presidential term and the natural termination of the old man’s life cycle, of which he and his staffers increasingly wary.

Biden officials’ callousness toward civilian suffering is nothing new. Consider recent years of thwarted American overseas interventionism. For pundits, the prospects of rallying modern Ukrainian Cossack regiments to topple the Russian juggernaut was, after all, perfectly worth the deaths of more than half a million young Ukrainian men, and many more un-conscripted civilians. The US and EU happily exploited Ukrainian poverty and naiveté—the Ukrainians’ deleterious thirst to belong to an idealized, imaginary “West” was taken advantage of by the real West, along with Ukrainians’ very un-Western and un-contemporary cultural belief in the need to forge national identity in the flames of collective sacrifice and unconventional warfare. The result: 600.000 dead Ukrainians and the unceasing fragmentation of the country.

Famine for Afghanistan presented no dilemmas for Biden, so long as sanctions promised a slap on the bearded faces of the triumphant jihadists after NATO lost that maimed country. The scarcity of medicine in Iran’s previously impressive healthcare system, a result of Biden’s renewal of Trump’s maximum pressure policies, has not stirred consciences in the White House. Whether you call Gaza a massacre, ethnic cleansing, genocide, or hellscape, for Biden the uprooting of an official enemy by way of a proxy client-state is simply an example, a point to be made, an American perception-management op.

Past US presidents resorted to more artful and elegant theatrics. JFK earned jealous admiration through Marilyn Monroe. Reagan even stood accused of having impersonated senility to get through the hearings over Iran-Contra. Let’s not forget George W. Bush’s performances of imbecile generative grammar. “They misunderestimated me” indeed: the circus of “Bushism” was what made a Trump presidency possible.

Biden drags farce to new lows, in terms of the quality of his acting-skills, transparently dishonest when bleating about a “ceasefire by Monday!” over ice-cream to throw off Michigan’s “uncommitted” activists during primaries. Ben Shreckinger’s biography “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty Year Rise to Power” chronicles a Biden who acts as sociopathic and opportunistically as Netanyahu or Trump. There is no reason doubt that, until it became a pre-election optics-crisis, Biden had adamantly signed onto Netanyahu’s, Gallant’s and Smotrich’s plans to level the Gaza Strip. The only major international ideal Biden has shown dedication to is regime-change by any available means. Yet it remains a goal that has continuously eluded him, because of the problematic factor of populations standing in the way. Thus far, Western coup attempts backfire by strengthening the stranglehold that autocratic governments under siege have over their civilian populace. This boomerang effect was proven in Syria and in Venezuela, where ruling bodies and their popular support bases grew in tenacity, despite or because of “maximum pressure”. Obama, under whom Biden was VP, attempted to rehabilitate the art of overthrow-by-bombardment as a progressive (rather than Bushite) cri de guerre. Yet the only coup-d’état technique that thus far seems to work, is the sort that was discredited by global moral outrage towards Plan Condor in 1970s Latin America. More recently, that playbook was implemented by Pakistan’s military against deposed Imran Khan, in a country that nobody from the West cares about or pays attention to.

US officials have learned by now that when dictators in the Muslim world are executed, this opens up a vacuum that is quickly filled by radicalized jihadi elements in populations, as happened after the Biden-approved Iraq invasion. Biden could not fend off the Taliban and was instead reminded of lessons forgotten by the West during the Cold War: lessons about the resilience of native guerrilla insurgent units. The wrong lessons: MSNBC Democrats hoped for a “new Afghanistan” that would entrap Russia in Ukraine. Now that the Ukraine war also seems unwinnable, Biden wants to leave office having at least uprooted wretched little Hamas, even if that means uprooting all Gaza Palestinians along with their governing entity. Civilian death rarely factors as relevant in Biden’s foreign policy calculations and is offset by the need to show that the empire’s not dead yet and that America can still pull off one impressive coup or “humanitarian intervention”. But these efforts, too, have failed: the world was not dazzled or awestruck for a moment by the American-Israeli response to October 7th as it was by the charismatic Zelensky’s fight against Russia. Both the Ukraine crusade and American endowment of Israel have failed at their intended mythmaking objective of rejuvenating America’s global image: the US seems weaker, more irrational, unfree and outdated, rather than potent, despite or because of its fanatical support for Kiev and West-Jerusalem. One would be tempted to joke that this is Biden’s “Homer Simpson moment” for exclaiming “Doh”, were the consequences not so bloody.

Much of the world rejoiced at seeing America struggle with the Houthis’ idealistic pirate-state. This series of frustrated regime-change attempts culminates in the inability to uproot Hamas’ pauperized government from tiny Gaza, even after Israel displaced Gaza’s entire civilian population, unable to find the antlion lair of the Hamas commanders, after purporting these to be located beneath Al-Shifa hospital.

The violence, because of scale, is seldom recognized from afar as yet another proxy-war and regime-change-op. Of course, that’s not what Netanyahu would like it to be—the Likud leader, ever since the death of Sharon has sought to fill the shoes of father-figure to the settler-movement, promising to avenge fundamentalists evacuated from Gush Katif in 2005 by emptying Gaza of all Palestinians in 2024 while the anemic US president still sleepwalks.

But for the Biden White House, all the Israeli invasion amounted to, before it came to embarrass Western elites, was a last chance to celebrate one successful and memorable deposition of an official enemy government, (Hamas, to be replaced with Abbas’ Palestinian Authority) civilian lives be damned as they were in Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine.

By now, not even Linda Thomas-Greenfield could seriously argue that things are looking good for American exceptionalism. The hero-cult surrounding khaki-clad warrior-fundraiser Zelensky—an aura of heroism which is also rapidly fading from our fragile, TikTok-fraught memory—helped us quickly forget the disgraceful images of Western fugue from Afghanistan. But with the current war, disgrace is back full-circle, the heroism passé. The endeavor at “shock and awe” to win hearts and minds abroad, has ultimately given way to a morbid burlesque of self-emasculation of US foreign policy in the 21st century: a defeat which may inspire the West’s enemies for decades. There is also the clear danger that all the speculations and misunderstandings about Biden’s true intentions behind overindulging Zelensky and Netanyahu will fuel antisemitic conspiracy theorists long after Biden shuffles off this mortal coil.

But political instinct is also lacking among imperialism’s critics. In response to the “mystery” of Biden’s capitulations to Netanyahu’s tantrums, an array of commentators associated with the left, from the New Left Review’s Wolfgang Streeck to fellow traveler Geoffrey Sachs to pro-Palestinian online commentators all struggle to explain Biden’s willingness to take a nose-dive in domestic polls and risk electoral defeat for the sake of pleasuring Netanyahu.

Streeck, Mearsheimer and Sachs are only the most sincere and eloquent among these critics, who treat a vulgar and relatively obvious situation as if it were rife with opacity and sinister riddles.

The thesis that Israel controls US-Middle East foreign policy, advanced by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their 2007 book “The Israel Lobby” was discredited by none other than Norman Finkelstein, who insisted that while Israeli advocacy groups do impact Washington’s foreign policy towards Israel, they are not what determines American military operations throughout the wider Middle East or in Iraq. Finkelstein ridiculed Walt-Mearsheimer’s suggestion that Cheney would be submissive or at the mercy of an ideological commitment to Zionism, or, for that matter, to anything other than Cheney and a 500% boom in Haliburton stock. But because the enemies of both Mearsheimer and Finkelstein tend to be the same people, Finkelstein’s critique was neglected by untrusting liberals who lump him and Mearsheimer together.

Enter Wolfgang Streeck. In his column “Master and Servant” for the New Left Review’s blog Sidecar, the German political scientist proclaims that the US has become the unwitting, pathetic hostage of the Israeli nuclear behemoth it fed: “Has the US lost control over its protégé, servant turned into master, master into servant? (…) Is the US, blackmailed by the threat of a Middle Eastern Armageddon, now forced to allow Israel to pursue ‘victory’ at any price? Does Israel’s capacity for nuclear war bestow on the Israeli radical right a sense of invincibility, as well as a confidence that they can dictate the terms of peace with or without the Americans, and certainly without the Palestinians? The political costs incurred by the US for not ending the killing – either not wanting or not being able to do so – are likely to be gigantic, both morally, although there may not be much to lose in that regard, and strategically: the ‘indispensable nation’ paraded before the world, helpless in the face of brazen disobedience on the part of its closest international ally.”

Streeck identifies the Israeli mentality as the “Samson doctrine”: “In fact, there is an even more ancient model of Israeli heroism, the myth of Samson, which seems to be no less popular among at least some of the nuclear strategists in and around the IDF command. Samson was a ruler of Israel – a ‘judge’ – in biblical times, during the war between the Israelites and the Philistines in the 13th or 12th century BCE. Like Heracles, Samson was endowed with superhuman physical strength, enabling him to kill an entire army of Philistines, reportedly one thousand strong, by striking them dead with the jawbone of a donkey. After being betrayed and falling into the hands of the enemy, he was kept prisoner in the main temple of the Philistines. When he could no longer hope to escape, he used his remaining strength to pull down the two mighty columns that supported the roof of the building. All the Philistines died, together with him. (…) Nuclear weapons are sometimes claimed by radical pro-Israeli commentators to have given the country a ‘Samson option’ – to ensure that if Israel has to go down, its enemies will go down with it. (…)Myths can be a source of power; a credible threat of extended suicide can open a lot of strategic space –“

It is an interesting juxtaposition: Samson, the Jewish Hercules, has cowed Biden, the whimpering opportunist, into submission, the mewling old emperor taken hostage.

Instead of reaching for the Torah’s powerful myths of ancient guerrilla resistance, or for TikTok for that matter, why not apply scientific method, and seek the simplest explanation?

Biden’s sluggishness in responding to pressure is not mere senility. Nor can it be entirely chalked up to former US diplomat Chas Freeman’s explanation, which is that Biden’s generation of politicians still embrace Leon Uris’ “Exodus” epic account of Israel (an aesthetic Democrats also clearly borrowed for the propaganda promoting the Ukraine war, which cast Zelensky as a 21st century Moshe Dayan.) The simplest explanation is two-fold. Biden’s White House, firstly, grew accustomed to harmonious compliance and sycophantic consensus within his party throughout the wars waged during the years preceding October 2023. Second: more than any other Democrat alive, Biden boasts a stronger record of unabashedly declaring himself for sale to all pressure groups who milk politicians, ever since his youthful sleazy entry into Delaware politics. Data from the NGO Open Secrets highlights Biden’s having received more than double the donations from AIPAC and similar Israel-linked groups than the next tier of top recipients on that committee’s list. Compare Biden’s $5,736,701 in donations from pro-Israeli pressure groups to New Jersey’s Michael Menendez ($2,500,005) or Hillary Clinton ($2,361,812) Such lobbyists are of course doing nothing foreign to the auction-house logic of Washington, and Biden has from the start of his presidency upheld the priorities of militarist neoconservative donors.

Much like the farcical “aid” to Gaza, Biden’s foreign policy has sought to reverse damage he himself inflicts upon American “Exceptionalism’s” image abroad. These ill-conceived efforts mounted ever since his now-forgotten inaugural scandal—the shambolic US-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, which disheartened Western elites, but was glorified by sectors of the left as a milestone defeat of imperialism even as Biden seized that famished country’s assets. A genuine defeat of imperial arrogance in Afghanistan would have been a democratic plebiscite in which the Afghans were, for once, consulted on what Afghans actually want—Western protection from the Taliban, or immediate withdrawal and compensation for all the years of ruination? What about Western prosthetic medical technology to aid the maimed country’s abnormally high percentage of amputees? Afghanistan had no winners except for defense contractors, regardless their race or religion.

Trillions of dollars and four years later, Biden finds himself exactly where he started: omening the decadence for the Western foreign policy establishment, without a single coup that stuck. Just many experiments, all very expensive fuckups, though more affordable than the traditional military onslaught that didn’t “outsource” to foreign legionnaires. American and European progressives who waited three years before criticizing Biden’s wars and his crackdowns on anti-war voices, are all to blame for the boneyards in Gaza and the Donbass today. We must not forgive ourselves or anyone else. Where were we all this time?

Arturo Desimone (Aruba, 1984) is an Aruban-Argentine writer, poet and visual artist. His articles on politics previously appeared in  CounterPunch, DemocraciaAbiertaBerfrois UKDiem25news and elsewhere. Author of the poetry collection Mare Nostrum/Costa Nostra (Hesterglock 2019) and the bilingual book “La Amada de Túnez” which  appeared in Argentina during the pandemic, he has performed at international poetry festivals in Granada, Nicaragua, Buenos Aires and Havana.