Thursday, August 08, 2024

From Aaron Bushnell to “I’m Speaking” in Five Months


I can’t really find the words to express how depressing it is to watch the life get sucked out of the anti-genocide movement in the United States because one of the candidates running for president this year happens to come from the administration that’s been overseeing said genocide.

Kamala Harris shouted down protesters against the US-backed incineration of Gaza during a campaign rally on Wednesday, responding to their chants of “we won’t vote for genocide” by telling them they’re helping Trump win.

The Hill reports:

Demonstrators in the crowd at Harris’s Detroit rally repeatedly shouted out as the vice president spoke to an airplane hangar packed with supporters, “Kamala, Kamala you can’t Hide, we won’t vote for genocide.” The crowd booed and drowned out the protesters with chants of “Kamala.”

“I’m here because we believe in democracy. Everyone’s voice matters, but I am speaking now. I am speaking now,” Harris said to applause.

As protesters continued to interrupt, Harris delivered a more blunt warning.

“You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise I’m speaking,” she said.

The crowd thunderously applauded the comments from Harris. Social media is full of Democrats sharing the footage of the interaction and fawning over what a commanding girlboss she is.

Like I said. Depressing.

https://x.com/JulianaStratton/status/1821343725638836267

Shortly after Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed Harris, I noted that we were “already seeing some strong ‘shut up shut up SHUT UP about Gaza’ energy from Kamala supporters toward those to their left,” and since that time this phenomenon has been growing steadily worse. Now we’ve got this freakish dynamic where criticizing an administration that is guilty of the crime of genocide will get people telling you “Hey, nobody’s perfect!” like it’s some petty little quibble.

And I can’t help watching all this and wondering what Aaron Bushnell would think. On February 25 Bushnell self-immolated in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington while screaming “Free Palestine” to draw attention to the horrors his country was helping to inflict upon the people of Gaza, and now the cause he gave his life for in the most agonizing way possible is being intentionally subverted by people who claim to care about justice and human rights. What would this look like to him?

If, before igniting the accelerant, Bushnell had been granted a vision of Harris silencing anti-genocide protesters to the applause of her followers months in the future, would he still have gone through with it? Or would he have cast his lighter aside and collapsed in a fit of despair while Gaza burns, like the rest of us are doing right now?

https://x.com/caitoz/status/1821506809389265210

Five months. In a bit over five months we went from seeing an active-duty airman light himself on fire to turn America’s eyes toward Gaza, followed by a highly energized student protest movement against their country’s facilitation of genocidal war crimes, to seeing those student protests crushed with the approval of the current president, and then his would-be successor telling anti-genocide protesters to shut the fuck up and fall in line so that Democrats can win.

Every time a light gets sparked in the darkness, the empire scrambles to snuff it out. Which wouldn’t be so depressing if not for all the brainwashed masses falling all over themselves to help them do it.

Ah well. The fight goes on. Even if these pricks are going to set the whole world on fire, we can still at least try to make it difficult for them.Facebook

Caitlin Johnstone has a reader-supported Newsletter. All her work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. Her work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece and want to read more you can buy her books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff she publishes is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything she publishes. All works are co-authored with her husband Tim Foley. Read other articles by Caitlin.

 

Tim Walz for Veep: Barely Noticed or Noticeable


While the Kamala Harris coronation for Democratic presidential nomination continues in its safely shielded path, her sacred status among party members growing with each day, the decision to select Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota as Vice Presidential running mate had all the hallmarks of unbearable caution.  Caution for being secure from any ambition on his part (Presidential contenders tend to pick running mates unlikely to go off the reservation or eclipse them during their time in office.)  Caution, as well, from other factions in the party that may make things interesting at the Chicago Democratic Convention slated to start on August 19.

Caution, also, from any disturbance posed by overtly visible talent, which can be something of a handicap for higher office.  The Minnesota governor had certainly received attention from Harris for his less than profound suggestion that comments made by Republican contenders Donald Trump and J. D. Vance were “weird”.  In an interview with MSNBC, Walz declared that “These are weird people on the other side.”  He reiterated the view at a campaign event in which he claimed that the Trump-Vance ticket was a “threat to democracy” that would see rights removed and people placed in danger.

Given that much media coverage involves skipping over garbage cans rather than scouring the garbage, this was a perfect illustration about a figure who should, at best, stick to mediocre party slogans.  But no.  Harris, the Democratic anointed papier-mâché candidate for the White House, thought differently.

Many Democrats revelled in the fatuity of it all.  “Tim’s signature is his ability to talk like a human being and treat everyone with decency and respect,” said former President Barack Obama in a statement.  The Los Angeles Times was told by a Democratic source allegedly close to Harris that Walz revealed much “ease in cutting through political jargon to deliver a straight message,” something that appealed to her.

Walz may have an advantage insofar as he is utterly unknown to the voters that will swing the election.  Outside his state, he is clean, cold tabula rasa and utterly without distinction.  The figure of no record can create something anew.  But the person overlooked for his role – Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania – may well cause tongues wagging, not least through his supporters.

Shapiro certainly would have been a far more interesting choice.  Hypocritically, he was attacked by members of his own party for adopting an enthusiastically pro-Israeli position in the Israel-Hamas War, one that most Democrats implicitly, or explicitly support through the continued supply of arms sales to the Netanyahu government.  But perfumed cant and ham performances are everything in Washington, and Shapiro’s refusal to condemn the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza with appropriate ceremony drew such labels as “Genocide Josh”.

A perplexed Jared Moskowitz, Democratic Representative from Florida, summarised the issue with lean clarity: “Josh’s position on Israel is almost identical to everybody else, but he’s being held to a different standard.  So you have to ask yourself why.”  Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, also from Florida, noted with suspicion that Shapiro, as “the only Jewish candidate is getting excruciating, very specific scrutiny, particularly around his positions on Israel.”

William A. Galston, chair and senior fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, suggests two possible pitfalls to the Walz pick.  For one, he opens a flank for Republicans to argue that Harris has yielded to the more progressive side of the political aisle.

While there is much to rebut and rebuke about the Harris-is-Progressive position, her stances on the Green New Deal, supporting Medicare for All, among others, will provide ammunition for the GOP squirrels that will hardly be defused by this choice.  Walz is obviously there as stuffing for the moderate, even conservative voters, though this a severe misreading.  The days of Walz as a pro-gun rights member of the National Rifle Association are now the stuff of dusty archives and amnesiac diarists.

The notion that he is a siren to working-class voters and those from the rural constituency is also highly questionable.  Between 2018 and 2022, the gloss, notably in the rural areas, wore off.  In 2022, his re-election was largely attributable to the suburbanites of Minneapolis.  The current version of Walz is one endorsed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has been enthusiastic, along with other progressive voices, for his selection.

In another sense, as Galston goes on to suggest, this Harris pick could well aggravate some Democratic voters and squander the chance of a VP running mate able to draw in voters from a swinging state.  The solidly safe Democratic state of Minnesota is hardly likely to make a dent in the campaign funds of the major parties, let alone disrupt the electoral compass.

Shapiro, being the governor of one of the presumptive jewels of the Electoral College, exceeded President Joe Biden’s 2020 share in the state by some margin in a number of salient groups: seven points among rural and provincial voters; seven points among non-college voters; nine among Republicans and voters inclined to the Republicans, and five among Independents.

In the final count, the VP running mates of either side are unlikely to redirect navigation in any significant way.  Such candidates generally count as embroidery for the campaign, and, when in office, function accordingly.  That said, embroidery can still be noticed, and in this regard, Walz is remarkably unnoticeable.FacebookTwitter

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.

No comments:

Post a Comment