Wednesday, February 05, 2025

USAID “Marxists”?  Once Again, Elon Musk Again Displays His Invincible Ignorance


 February 4, 2025
Facebook

Photograph Source: Embajada de EEUU en Argentina – CC BY 2.0

According to Elon Musk, USAID, America’s chief foreign aid agency, “deserves to die.”  Why? Because it is “a viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America.”

What planet does this strange fellow live on?  I AM a radical-left Marxist professor – one who happens to love America – and for more than forty years I have been criticizing USAID for not being radical or leftist at all.  What the irate oligarch means by “marxist” is anyone’s guess.  I know a good many people who have worked for the agency and I’d bet money that the only ones who know anything about dialectical materialism, the organic composition of capital, or the theory of alienation are those who have taken my graduate classes.

What Musk doesn’t understand (inter alia) is that USAID has two conflicting missions. First, its employees and contractors try to relieve suffering in other lands by giving their people disaster relief, poverty relief, and technical assistance, and, above all, by promoting economic and social development.  In the past 64 years they have helped to save millions of lives around the globe and have trained generations of local leaders to promote future development.

At the same time, the agency is commissioned to strengthen the political and economic position of the United States in those same lands and to work with the U.S. military in times of war.  Most of the time it serves as an instrument of American “soft power” whose effect, over the long haul, is to maintain and expand the American empire and to challenge the power of its Russian, Chinese, and other competitors.

That is why I’ve been criticizing USAID for so long – because I think that soft power in the service of empire leads eventually to hard power conflicts.  But only a reckless political adventurer with more than a little sadism in his makeup would call USAID, as Musk did, a “criminal organization” and sentence it to “die.”  It is America’s most important and effective humanitarian organization, and it spends virtually nothing compared with military and military-industrial expenditures.  Musk and Trump have other motives for wanting the organization abolished or vastly reduced and absorbed by the State Department.

The first motive is the most primitive sort of nationalism, the sort that advocates enriching your own people – starting, of course, with those who are already rich – even at the cost of impoverishing other peoples.  “Don’t give anything to the residents of other nations unless there is some immediate profit to be gained by yours.”  This is basically the philosophy of Ebenezer Scrooge – but I’m sure that Musk and Trump consider Charles Dickens a far-left Marxist.

Second, Musk/Trump clearly want to punish public service workers and civil contractors for not being in private enterprise and to force them to seek private jobs. According to them, only profit-making work is “productive”; anyone working for or the government is “unproductive” and parasitic – except, of course, for those in the military and military-industrial sector, whose budgets are considered sacrosanct and beyond review.  This is consistent with their underlying political strategy to divide working people into two classes and discriminate against those whose efforts have other goals than maximizing profits.  Perhaps this is why Musk calls them “Marxists” – although his definition would make Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, spin in his grave.

In any case, King Donald and Prince Elon (or do I have their titles reversed?) have begun to treat the thousands of people working in the field of foreign aid with the sort of cruel contempt that reflects their true feelings about all workers other than those wearing MAGA hats.  “Let them get jobs in private business” = “Let them eat cake.”  One can’t help wondering when those thousands now being thrown out of work by royal fiat will start marching in the direction of the Bastille.



Trump’s Theater of Cruelty


 February 4, 2025
FacebookTwitter

Photograph Source: Vice President – Public Domain

Donald Trump’s re-election marks not just a political turning point but the ascendance of a corpse-like order, a nation stiffening under the weight of its own decay. His second coming is less a victory than a death march, a spectral procession of hollow men in red ties and stiff gaits—zombies with ice in their veins. Videos of Trump dancing evoke images of  him moving in a style that is jerky, lifeless, as if his body resents rhythm itself. A wooden plank with a painted sneer, twitching to the anthem of reaction, soulless and mean. No body on fire here. no slow bend toward desire, no trace of the supple grace that lives in a world still capable of love. Instead, the image signals the aesthetic of a new order of crudely celebrated as the manosphere—puffed-up bodies, drunk on steroids and grievance, exuding the acrid scent of sweat and power.

This is the culture that Trumpism has wrought: stripped of tenderness, of improvisation, of joy. Gone is the world I knew as a working-class kid, where music spilled into the streets, where voices—aching, defiant, untamed—set bodies in motion. Etta James wailing, Billie Holiday lingering on the edge of heartbreak, Nina Simone playing the piano like she was conjuring a storm. Little Anthony and the Imperials harmonizing into the night. This was a world of movement, of bodies ignited by something more than rage—by love, longing, the exquisite pain of feeling too much.

But in the America of Trump 2025, the only bodies that matter are those that march in unison, rigid and obedient. His regime, unbound by law or morality, has reconfigured the machinery of the state into an instrument of vengeance. The January 6th insurrectionists walk free, hailed as patriots. Federal agencies are gutted, purged of dissent. Civil rights protections are erased with the stroke of a pen. Universities, once imperfect sanctuaries of critical thought, are being remade into white Christian indoctrination centers. And in an act of breathtaking cruelty, thousands of immigrants await detention in Guantánamo Bay, that purgatorial space of empire where justice goes to die.

This is not simply the return of authoritarianism; it is its evolution—leaner, more technologically adept, more deeply enmeshed in the fabric of corporate and digital power. Trump does not rule alone. He is merely the frontman for a brutalizing oligarchy that has abandoned even the pretense of democracy. The billionaire class—those slick architects of social media monopolies, the digital overlords of surveillance capitalism—have found their perfect vehicle in his shamelessness. Spoiled boys in men’s bodies giving Nazi salutes, orgasmic over their new found power. This is the oligarchy of fools now kissing the ring of the grifter immune for his past and future crimes. Unfettered capitalism has reached its final stage, where wealth no longer hides its contempt for the masses but wears it like a badge.

The spectacle of political theater has become the defining element of Trump’s aesthetic. It has morphed into what Susan Sontag called “fascinating fascism,” a form of power that “thrives on gestures of provocation.” It glamorizes unbridled authority, indulges in the pleasure of humiliation, and expresses outright contempt for “all that is reflective, critical, and pluralistic.” This is not mere political performance—it is the spectacle of domination, staged as both entertainment and ideology. In this fascist aesthetic, power is not simply wielded but flaunted, paraded in grotesque excess—an orchestrated display of cruelty, intoxicated by its own illusions of national rebirth. This revival is not new; it is modeled on the white supremacist legacy of the Confederacy, draped in the symbols of its past and resurrected as a blueprint for the future. Meanwhile, the legacy press registers the horror but too often stops short of critically interrogating or denouncing it. But this is more than the pornography of power; it is an excremental spectacle—a celebration of misery, violence, and death itself.

Former President Biden, in his farewell speech, warned of the creeping shadow of oligarchy, yet he dared not name the truth: that his own party, with its bloodless embrace of neoliberalism, helped forge the conditions for Trump’s resurrection. This is not simply the triumph of reactionary forces but the consequence of a culture that has surrendered to its own worst instincts—one that has forsaken solidarity for spectacle, justice for cruelty, hope for managed decline.

And so we are left with this: staggering inequality, a militarized state, the slow and methodical unmaking of democracy. The new oligarchs scorn the very notion of the public good. They mock reason, erase history, and demand that the government sever itself from any lingering obligation to care. They speak the language of the market, where everything—including life itself—is merely another commodity to be traded, exploited, discarded. Trump and his sycophants are the walking dead. They have blood in their mouths and anti-freeze in their bodies. The rhythm they embrace is one of stiff soldiers playing in military parades.

But I remember another rhythm, another cadence, one that refuses to die—symptomatic of another time when politics seemed possible as a force for justice, equality, and hope. As a shoeshine boy working Black clubs in Providence, RI.in the fifties, I remember Etta James, her voice raw and thunderous, shattering the quiet. I remember the bodies in motion, defiant and free. In her music, in her story, in the way she broke down racial and musical barriers, there was a fire that no amount of repression could smother. Etta James never bought into the whitewashing of history. She was a border-crosser, refusing to be contained, her music too powerful to be tamed by an industry that sought to erase the rough edges of Black artistry. She carried with her the weight of struggle and the possibility of something beyond survival—of love, of dignity, of a world where music could still touch the soul rather than serve as corporate wallpaper.

Even in her later years, when she sang Fool That I Am at the Newport Jazz Festival or in Toronto when I saw her a few years before she died, her voice carried the same intensity, the same unapologetic passion. But the world she sang into had changed. When Barack Obama was elected, it was not Etta but Beyoncé who sang At Last at his inauguration. It was a gesture that wounded Etta deeply—a reminder that the world she had shaped had turned away from her, preferring a polished version of history over the raw, defiant reality she represented. The same forces that had once feared her power now erased her legacy in favor of something more palatable, more marketable.

This is the fate of all radical voices in a society bent on forgetting. Whether in politics, education, or culture, the forces of erasure work tirelessly to neutralize history, to sand down the edges of struggle, to replace resistance with spectacle. Trumpism is only the most grotesque expression of this impulse, but it is not the only one. The neoliberal university, the corporate music industry, the political establishment—they all participate in the politics of forgetting.

And yet, something lingers. A voice that will not be silenced, a rhythm that refuses to be stilled. In this age of zombie politics, where bodies are reduced to instruments of control and obedience, there is still a memory of movement, of improvisation, of freedom. And as long as we remember—through music, through writing, through acts of defiance—the fire cannot be extinguished. Memory rescues and that is why is has become so dangerous in the age of Trump.

I first heard Etta James in a cramped basement apartment at a party with my Black high school teammates. It was unlike anything I had ever experienced. At the Catholic Youth Organization dances I had attended, white-washed music reigned—Pat Boone instead of Little Richard, the Beach Boys instead of Little Anthony. Nuns patrolled the floor, ensuring that no one got too close, warning us to leave room for the Blessed Virgin Mary. Desire was something to be policed. Bodies were to be contained.

But in that smoke-filled apartment, everything was different. Bodies pressed together, laughing, flirting, moving with a kind of freedom I had never known. And in the background was Etta James, her husky voice breaking through the noise, filling the room with something raw and undeniable. She transformed the body from an object of discipline into a site of joy, creativity, and resistance. I danced without moving my feet, unlearning the rigid postures imposed on me and stepping into a different kind of world—one where solidarity and social justice were stitched into the fabric of music, movement, and feeling. A moment not of nostalgia, but one that reminds me of the power of passion, the body in flight, anger transformed into a collective song of struggle. A moment that fueled a culture of resistance. A moment to come, hopefully sooner than later.

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include: The Terror of the Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), On Critical Pedagogy, 2nd edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); Race, Politics, and Pandemic Pedagogy: Education in a Time of Crisis (Bloomsbury 2021); Pedagogy of Resistance: Against Manufactured Ignorance (Bloomsbury 2022) and Insurrections: Education in the Age of Counter-Revolutionary Politics (Bloomsbury, 2023), and coauthored with Anthony DiMaggio, Fascism on Trial: Education and the Possibility of Democracy (Bloomsbury, 2025). Giroux is also a member of Truthout’s board of directors.

Barack Obama’s First Drone Strike


 February 4, 2025
Facebook

Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

For the past quarter century, ever since 2001, presidents of the United States inaugurate their terms not with bottles of champagne but with drone and missile strikes. Donald Trump followed the rhythm. Not long after he ascended to the chair in the Oval Office, he sent off missiles against ISIS fighters “hiding in caves” – as he put it on social media – in the Golis mountains in northeast Somalia. No civilians were killed, said Trump. They always say that.

Trump’s first missile strike of this presidency reminded me of Barack Obama’s first missile strike, only three days after the Nobel Peace Prize winner was sworn in as the president of the United States in 2009. In the morning of January 23, CIA director Michael Hayden told Obama that they were ready to strike high-level al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders in northern Pakistan. Obama did not object. At 830pm, local time, a drone flew over Karez Kot in Ziraki village, Waziristan. The people on the ground heard it. They called the drones bhungana, that which sounds like a buzzing bee. Three Hellfire missiles were fired remotely, and they smashed into some homes. Fifteen people died in that attack.

One of the missiles went through the wall of a home and exploded in the drawing room of the house. Inside that room sat a group of family members who were celebrating before one of the young men – Aizazur Rehman Qureshi (age 21) – was to leave for the United Arab Emirates. The drone strike killed him. It also killed two men, Mohammed Khalil and Mansoor Rehman, leaving their fourteen children without a father. Their nephew, Faheem Qureshi (age 7), felt his face on fire, and ran out of the room (he lost an eye). Not one of the men and boys in the room had a connection to either al-Qaeda or to the Taliban. They were hard working people, one of the men had been a worker in the UAE and on his return, his nephew was preparing to go and help the family by working in the Gulf. Now, a hasty decision by the CIA left the family distraught. The US government never apologised for the attack and did not compensate the family.

In 2012, Newsweek’s Daniel Klaidman published Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency. If I were Obama, I would like this book. It is sympathetic to him. After that drone strike, Klaidman points out, “Obama was understandably disturbed.” The next day, a person who was there in the Situation Room told Klaidman, Obama walked in but “you could tell from his body language that he was not a happy man.” Apparently, this was the spur for Obama to learn about the CIA’s “signature strikes” (when the US government felt it could kill anyone who looked like a terrorist) and “crowd killing” (when it was acceptable to kill civilians in a crowd if a “high value target” was also there). Obama said that he did not like this that he was unhappy that there might be women and children in the crowd. But, as Klaidman writes, “Obama relented – for the time being.” In fact, the “time being” seems to have extended through the two terms of his presidency. What differentiated Obama from Bush before him and Trump afterwards was merely his hesitancy. His actions were the same.

In 2010, Obama’s team developed the Disposition Matrix or the “kill list” and the procedures to activate the use of strikes to kill or capture “high value targets.” The chain of decision making for this kill list did not include any sense that the men on the list could have been accidentally placed there or that they would get a chance to defend themselves from the CIA’s accusations in a court of law. In other words, there was no judicial review. In 2011, this should have raised eyebrows when these procedures led to the assassination of several US citizens in Yemen (first Anwar al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, and then – in a separate drone strike – his sixteen-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki); in 2017, the US government killed al-Awlaki’s eight-year-old daughter, Nawar al-Awlaki. All three were US citizens, who should have been afforded some US constitutional protections even if the US disregards international law. None was available to them.

In 2012, the film Ghaddar (Traitor) has a popular song sung by Rahim Shah called Shaba Tabhi Oka (Come on Destroy Everything). The film is in Pashto, the language of northern Pakistan and large parts of Afghanistan. It is also the language of those who died in Obama’s 2009 drone strike. In the song sequence, two lovers, played by the popular actors Arbaaz Khan and Sobia Khan, dance and sing with the culture of drones and bombs now associated with love. “Look at me, bomb my heart,” says Sobia Khan, while the refrain runs, “come on, destroy everything.”

Vijay Prashad’s most recent book (with Noam Chomsky) is The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and the Fragility of US Power (New Press, August 2022).


Is This the End of Liberal Democracy?

Bob Topper

February 5, 2025



Image by Visuals.

America is a liberal democracy. Its greatest blessing is freedom, the right to live and act in accordance with one’s conscience. This freedom unleashes boundless energy and creativity, and, along with other western nations, liberal democracies have advanced at an astonishing pace, far surpassing autocratic and theocratic nations by every measure, especially quality of life.

Despite its advantages, democracy is not universally accepted. Monarchs, autocrats, theocrats, and oligarchs, who have a stake in preserving the societal structures that protected their wealth and power, continue to repress freedom. They deceive their citizenry using misinformation and disinformation to disparage the freedom of the western world. And they crush opposition with iron-fisted police and kangaroo courts. Dissidents like Alexie Navalny and Vladimir Kara-Murza are imprisoned and often murdered.

Their propaganda has infected western democracies. United States, Germany, France, and Italy have all shifted to the right. People are losing faith in the most successful form of government ever devised.

A study by the Economist concluded that, along with Greece, Israel, Poland, and Brazil, America is now one of the “flawed democracies.” Worse yet, the stage is set for its ruin. Trump, who has admired autocratic leaders and aspires to be one, has surrounded himself with oligarchs; he heads a political party that advocates the overthrow of democracy, and they are following the Project 2025 playbook.

The loss of liberal democracy would be tragic for humanity and the planet. After four thousand years there is no reason to think that religions will ever bring peace and tranquility. The only real hope for humanity is humankind’s reasoning ability, and liberal democracies are the only form of government truly grounded in reason.

Why is American Democracy failing?

Politics and Money

Politics in America has become a rich man’s game. In 2011 the average net worth of a senator was $14 million while that of a House member was $7 million. Today those numbers would be 50 percent greater. And 15.9 billion was spent in the 2024 election. It is naïve to think that politics is not profitable or that politicians are not beholden to benefactors.

To win public office one usually needs the support of corporations and wealthy donors. And, when elected, officials spend half of their time raising money, time that should be spent working for their constituents. Money has corrupted the system. In the Sons of Wichita, Daniel Schulman reveals that one of Charles [Koch’s] advisers said, “Politicians are [paid] stage actors working off a script produced by the nation’s intellectual class.”

A major reason for this disgraceful circumstance is the 2010 Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, which ruled that free speech under the First Amendment bars government from restricting campaign expenditures by corporations and non-profits. In effect the court said that corporations are people, which is as absurd as it sounds. In his dissenting opinion Justice Stevens argued that the ruling represented “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government.”

Contributions of dark money are unlimited, and Congress cannot write laws to stop it. Non-profits are especially disturbing. In the last election, one shell corporation steered nearly $2.6 million to half a dozen Republican political committees though the company existed only on paper and had been incorporated for only three months.

Corporations and the wealthy have profited handsomely. Since 2010 the income of the top one percent has risen 250 percent, while the income of the bottom 20 percent has risen only 24 percent. The wealthy get what they pay for. Elon Musk has shown that by lodging at Mar-a-Lago and donating a quarter of a billion to a campaign, one can buy a controlling seat at the president’s table. No wonder Americans have lost faith in the system.

To be fair, many politicians recognize the problem and want to do something about it. Thirty-two Senators have supported a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United. But for now, the only safeguard preventing the complete corruption of our political system is our democracy. It must be appreciated that not one Republican appears on that list of 32, implying that the party consents to this compromise of democracy.

Divisiveness – Politics and Religion

Senseless “culture wars” also threaten our democracy. To say culture is misleading; these are not culture wars; they are freedom wars, wars over Americas greatest blessing.

Abortion is a key issue. Roe v. Wade ruled that until viability, the Constitution granted women the right to abort a pregnancy. In essence the court said that personhood begins with viability. But Christian fundamentalists insisted, without evidence, that personhood begins at an earlier time, though they were unable to show when. Nonetheless, they fought to deny women their freedom. After 50 years, conservative Christian Justice Alito, writing the Dobb’s decision, concocted a ruling that turned the issue to the states, where subjective popular opinion could override established legal precedent and a constitutional right.

The LGBT controversies are also a matter of freedom. The freedom to choose how we live belongs to everyone, including members of the LGBT community. But the Christian bible recognizes only two genders and fundamentalists view any variation a violation of god’s work. They believe their god wants this freedom to be denied to gay, lesbian, and transgender people. Their position is clearly untenable. LGBT individuals make up seven percent of the world’s population and represent natural variations in human sexual identity. It is senseless to think that a perfect creator could be wrong seven percent of the time.

Because the majority of Americans do not agree with their delusional views, Chistian fundamentalists see democracy as an obstacle they must overcome. And so, there are two influential groups who think it is in their interest to abandon democracy — the affluent and the Christian fundamentalists– a bizarre fusion of the followers of Jesus and the money changers he drove from the temple.

Their home is the theocratic Republican party, which has worked diligently to subvert our election process. Ironically, it was once the champion of individual freedom and democracy.

Theocratic parties are incompatible with American democracy. The first obligation of elected officials is to support and defend the Constitution, which they affirm by solemn oath. And the first obligation of a political party is to work for the benefit of the common good. For religious extremists, serving God is more important than serving the common good. And their primary allegiance is to the bible, not the constitution. For extremists, these conflicts are unreconcilable.

In the past, character and decency mattered to our politicians. Rarely would someone dishonor their name or that of their party by violating an oath of office. Today Republicans like Hawley and Greene, who want to declare America a Christian nation, treat honor casually, as though they could simply opt-out after swearing in. Democracy requires honesty, and people who reconcile their personal beliefs with their oath of office. Joe Biden, for example, a devout Catholic, was against abortion but recognized that his first obligation as Senator and President was to the Constitution. Character, however, is not a strong suit for Republican theocrats.

The First Amendment forbids establishing a national church. There has never been a theocratic party of any consequence, so the separation of