Sunday, May 03, 2026

When Declaring Independence From Empire, Declare Our Interdependence With Each Other


 May 1, 2026

This graphic from Stockholm Resilience Institute depicts how humanity has breached 7 of 9 planetary boundaries that provide it a safe operating space. Most recently, the ocean acidification boundary was crossed. This demonstrates our failure to recognize the common good, the element which links the crises now facing us.

The Common Root of Our Multiple Crises

The world is confronted by a boggling array of crises, testing the limits of human comprehension, let alone hope. In the immediate moment, a crisis of global supply chains caused by the shutdown of the Hormuz Strait threatens not only the greatest energy shock in history – It also imperils food supplies with the cutoff of a substantial portion of global fertilizers.

Lesser known supply streams flowing out of the Persian Gulf are also coming to the fore. Helium vital for making semiconductors and operating medical equipment. Sulphur that is used for fertilizer and industrial processes. Aluminum that taps the cheap energy of the Gulf. Meanwhile, the war itself could escalate uncontrollably. The use of nuclear weapons is discussed as a real possibility. Greater proliferation of nuclear weapons is a likely outcome.

In the backdrop, too much so, the climate crisis sizzles along. 2026 setting up to be hottest year on record after a series of record or near record years. Winter Arctic icepack at the lowest extent before melt season. An El Nino some scientists fear may be the hottest in history, disrupting weather patterns around the world. Shutdown of the North Atlantic circulation seen as increasingly probable, spelling climate chaos around the world. And climate is only one element of an overall global ecological crisis in which multiple planetary boundaries are being breached, making the planet less habitable overall for humanity and all forms of life.

Piling on top of that is the rise of AI and the surveillance state led by Bond-villain-level techlords running corporations such as Palantir. We question who will have a job in a few years, even as wealth increasingly flows to the very top, leaving most behind. Just affording the basics of life is becoming difficult, verging on impossible, for growing numbers.

These are only the highlights of a world seemingly headed for apocalyptic outcomes. Yet if each individual crisis is wrapped in what appears to be irresolvable complexity, there is a common element in all of this. The global political crisis, the ecological crisis, the social-economic crisis, have a singular root – failure to recognize the common good and pursue it as the top priority. Nations, political and economic institutions, and powerful individuals pursue their own interests in a predatory manner, with little regard for the greater whole.

So the ecological commons is polluted and torn up. The atmosphere is made a dump for the spew of industrial civilization. The survival interests nations have in cooperation and peace are ignored in favor of foolish competitions led by national security elites, even as Skynet-like robotic weapons emerge. Corporations and oligarchs pursue their own profit and wealth no matter what the cost to society, while more people are kicked off the bus and to the streets.

This points the way toward the common solution for our converging crises. We must re-focus the common good. We must re-create the commons in our economies, societies and political institutions, and seek the social and political levels at which the common good can most feasibly be realized. In a paradoxical way, this might mean dissolving larger structures that pose impediments to the process. That plays into the larger political questions facing the U.S. and the world.

Toward a Declaration of Interdependence

In my most recent post, I called for a Declaration of Moral Independence from Empire. To say we can no longer affiliate with the increasingly visible evils of empire, with its corruptions, exploitations, wars and genocides. In this is a recognition that the global structure of empire extending its tentacles in all corners of the world acts as an obstacle to the common good. In fact, because empire concentrates power in the hands of the relative few at the expense of the many, it is really the opposite of the common good.

Increasingly, confronted with the lock powerful interests have on the federal government of the U.S., and the deep corruption that possesses federal institutions, people are asking if we might better pursue the common good in different political forms. The new Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act and opening the way to Jim Crow congressional redistricting only adds to this sense. Ideas of independence for states such as California, historic regions such as New England, and bioregions such as Cascadia are discussed with a seriousness that was not conceivable a few years back. A nation that could elect Donald Trump twice does not, in the eyes of many, seem to have a united future. Trump has unleashed centrifugal tendencies on the left. If the Democrats sweep back to power, similar tendencies will surge on the right, led by states such as Texas where ideas of secession are strong.

The question through which all efforts must be filtered is interdependence. This is the very root of the common good, a recognition we all need each other. We live in a world of interconnected systems. When they are disrupted, people suffer and die, as we are learning with the Hormuz crisis. I fear most of us have no comprehension of the global food crisis that loss of fertilizer will cause, even as El Nino is disrupting harvests.

We should study the Soviet collapse, how the implosion of its systems led to sharply diminished life expectancy, mass unemployment, and the rise of criminal gangs and oligarchs. If the U.S. broke up in conflict, the results could be at least equally catastrophic. In the U.S., we rely on supply chains that span the continent and the world. Re-localization is a worthy goal and should be pursued, but not as an emergency response.

That is why I have proposed a Declaration of Moral Independence from Empire as a step which potentially preserves our commonalities while setting a path to a different political order. While declaring independence, we must also recognize our interdependence. We must see what draws us together, the common good we must jointly pursue.

As a thought process, consider what Trump and his cronies have cut from the federal budget. Scientific research across many fields, from health to climate and energy. Aid to support poor people in the U.S. and across the world. Public health both internationally and domestically. Disaster response. These cuts undermine the capacity of the federal government to “promote the general welfare” for which the Preamble to the Constitution calls. How can we re-create these vital functions?

Personally, as an inhabitant of Cascadia, I am acutely aware that before it was the name of a bioregion, it was the descriptor for the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a fault line off the coast capable of generating the most powerful type of earthquakes. Someday across Cascadia bridges will be down, power grids collapsed, all the circulatory systems on which we rely for daily life shattered. We’re going to need a lot of help from beyond. While ideas of independence are as strong on the U.S. side of Cascadia as anywhere in the country, we also need to look to networks of interdependence with our neighbors across the continent.

The common good where we can pursue it

A fundamental concept of governance is principle of subsidiarity. Accomplish tasks as close to home as possible. Do locally what can be achieved locally, or even hyperlocally. Situate everything at the most appropriate level, avoiding over-centralization, but centralizing where necessary. Where can we best concentrate the necessary resources? In some cases, such as marshaling response to disasters or building high-speed rail networks, larger structures will be needed. Especially living in a world fraught with increasing climate stress, we will need ways to help each other, in particular to share food when famines break out, as they will.

Through all of this, the key principle must be the common good. At what level can we best pursue it? In some cases it might be the neighborhood. In others the city or state. We are still learning what it means to organize at the bioregional level, though that will be increasingly important as we adapt to our climate-wracked world in our natural settings. And for some issues we will need broader alignment in some form, a reformed national government or new confederation. Of course, on some matters global alignment would be ideal, such as climate action, AI regulation and pandemic response. As we have seen, the Trump Administration is systemically stripping out the federal government’s capacity to pursue the common good in these and other areas. States and cities are stepping up to fill in the gaps, as interstate public health and climate alliances are now doing. It may be that the divisions between people and regions have grown so great that we must seek the common good closer to home, in our states and cities, bioregions and communities. We must seek alignment on the common good wherever we can, at whatever level we can.

If we understand the common root of our multiple global and national crises is the failure to recognize and work together for the common good, we understand the overarching project. To restore the commons, ecologically, politically, socially, economically. To build the institutions of commonality wherever we can, and to instill the principle of commonality in all our institutions. When seeking independence from old structures which have held us back, we must also seek to build and restore structures which strengthen our interdependence. When declaring independence from empire, we must also declare our interdependence upon each other. This is the basis of an order through which we can grapple with our multiple crises and find ways to work and live together. In the end, we survive together or not at all.

This first appeared on Patrick Mazza’s Substack page, The Raven.

Lessons for Everyone from the Irish Farmer Protests



 May 1, 2026

Barn on the French Prairie, Willamette Valley, Oregon. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Can anything make farmers turn away from Trump?

How rightwing populism has gripped rural areas, especially among farmers, is evidenced by the results from the past few presidential elections.

Still, critical challenges are emerging for key constituencies in Trump’s base, principally due to the damage that the Iran war is doing in the countryside.  Similar conditions pushed Irish farmers to the streets in early April, causing a change among political leadership shortly after, and also helping producers receive some much-needed relief.

That Irish farmers took to the streets shouldn’t surprise folks.  Earlier this year in January, some of them were also demonstrating, but against the EU-Mercosur trade deal.  Not too long ago in 2024, their counterparts across the English Channel throughout many European countries staged weeks of actions to protest free trade deals and excessive bureaucratic regulations.  Outside of Europe, in Mexico beginning in 2025 and continuing into 2026, farmers for many of the same reasons, are blocking roads to demand government intervention to address falling prices for their produce.

Taking a quick glance at these recent protests taking place around the world, farmers in the United States seem to be asleep at the wheel as producers in many other countries are taking control by challenging their governments and calling for economic justice.

It is not the case that farmers in the US are living large.

In 2025, farm bankruptcies rose by 46% compared to 2024.  In 2026, even though there appears to be some movement in a positive direction concerning prices for corn and soy farmers, the jump in what they have to pay for fuel and fertilizer caused by how the Iran war devastates global supply chains is eating into their profits.

Making matters worse, the fertilizer industry is heavily concentrated.  A standard metric for measuring concentration – the four-firm concentration ratio (CR4) – shows that the leading four companies in fertilizer markets control about 75% of sales.  When that figure is above 40% within a certain industry, according to researchers, then illegal practices such as price-fixing become endemic and consumers pay more than they should at the register.  Put simply, the negative economic impacts from the Iran war are compounded by an industry looking for excuses to further jack up prices.

Meanwhile, the current version of the Farm Bill in Congress woefully fails to meet the needs of a farm economy facing crisis.

First, pricing policy to support farmers was decided last year in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) when the surge in input prices was not on the political radar.  Adding insult to injury for our food and farm system, the OBBB also cut food assistance support and climate change initiatives.  Speaking to problems farmers are facing, nowhere in the current Farm Bill do we find any discussion of taking on corporate power.  Investing in transitioning farms to small-scale, young producers is also mainly an afterthought in the legislation. How hundreds of agribusiness commodity groups support the current version of the legislation while as many small-scale producer-led groups have voiced opposition, is testament to the fact that our farm policy is about propping up export markets instead of feeding Americans and creating resilient systems.

Trump’s billion-dollar handout to large-scale, mainly high-income farmers at the start of the Iran conflict shows an administration not concerned with sustaining our food system, but with padding the pockets of rich elite allies.

Farmers in Ireland faced similar challenges and felt that they had no choice but to go to the streets.  Their actions, drawing comparisons to France’s yellow vests movement, also boasted no clear leaders.  In locally organized, spontaneous actions, groups from April 7th to 14th mobilized by blockading strategic oil refineries as well as slowing down traffic on key streets and highways.

Their mobilizations bore some fruit.  First, they managed to secure a short-term relief package in the form of direct payments to offset rising fuel costs.  Politically, they also caused some political shifts, driving leaders to leave the governing coalition in opposition to how the farmers were treated.  While short of generating long-lasting structural change, the demonstrations in Ireland still show how small-scale protests driven by economic malaise can get national attention and prompt change.

Perhaps more importantly for US farmers is how the Irish managed to overcome their relative isolation in society and mobilize with others.  Particularly, Irish producers brought  truckers to their side, which aided with their efforts at creating roadblocks and slowdowns.  Their interests also were aligned, as truckers also have been negatively impacted by rising fuel prices.

With a widely maligned Farm Bill  working its way through Congress, legislators have apparently decided to forget about making meaningful changes to our food and farm system.  Meanwhile, the Iran war is placing unnecessary stress on farmers and most other working people.  Such conditions are similar to those in Ireland, which led farmers to find common cause with others.  Now is as good a time as any other for their counterparts in the US to say enough is enough and denounce a rigged economy that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Anthony Pahnke is a Professor of International Relations at San Francisco State University. His research covers development policy and social movements in Latin America. He can be contacted at anthonypahnke@sfsu.edu

Is the DNC Giving Kamala Harris a Boost for 2028?



 May 1, 2026

More than four months after Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin announced that he was breaking his promise to release its autopsy report on the 2024 election, the decision remains highly controversial. Arguments swirl around whether it’s wise to proceed without public scrutiny of what went wrong during the last presidential campaign. But scant attention has focused on how hiding the autopsy provides an assist to Kamala Harris, who currently leads in polling of Democrats for the party’s 2028 nomination.

As Harris eyes another run, she has a major stake in the DNC continuing to keep the autopsy under wraps – and has a lot to lose if it reaches the light of day. She must feel gratified when Martin defends keeping the autopsy secret, saying that the party should not “relitigate” the 2024 election and claiming that release of the 200-page document would result in “navel-gazing.”

Release of the entire autopsy would likely be a blow to Harris’s chances of becoming president in January 2029. Partly based on interviews with more than 300 prominent Democrats and others in all 50 states, it reportedly concludes that Harris’s unwavering support for U.S. weapons shipments to Israel was a significant factor in her loss to Donald Trump.

While she pursued an unsuccessful strategy of wooing scarce “moderate” Republican voters, many in the Democratic base were repelled by the full backing that Harris gave to President Biden’s massive arming of Israel as civilian deaths mounted in Gaza. She adhered to Biden’s admonition that there be “no daylight” between the two of them as she campaigned for president after he withdrew from the race.

At the time, polls showed that Harris was harming her election prospects by refusing to distance herself from Biden’s policy toward Israel. She evades that reality in her post-election book 107 Days, which dismisses antiwar protesters at her rallies as mere “hecklers.”

Harris’s protracted book tour has been beset by disruptions as well as her inability to provide cogent responses. At one appearance last fall, protesters yelled “Your legacy is genocide! Your legacy will always be genocide!” Her rejoinder was, “You know what, I am not president of the United States. You want to go to the White House and talk to him, then go on and do that.” Weeks later, speaking in Chicago, when a protester accused her of complicity in the Gaza horrors, she fired back: “Are you the same person that was telling people not to vote?”

Renewed attention to the Harris 2024 finances would also be unwelcome. Thirteen months after the election, the New York Times reported, “some Democratic donors have demanded a more thorough accounting of how exactly the party and Ms. Harris spent $1.5 billion in 15 weeks en route to losing every battleground state in 2024.” In mid-April, NBC News noted that “to date, a full accounting has not been made of who was paid what from the $1.5 billion, though the DNC later disclosed it carried more than $20 million in debt from Harris’s loss.”

A few weeks ago, Harris told an audience of influential black leaders that she’s “thinking about” running for president again and said that “I know what the job is and I know what it requires.” Politico described those comments as “the most explicit sign yet she’ll run for president in 2028.”

Just about the last thing Harris would need is enormous publicity about an authoritative audit from the DNC – the governing body of the Democratic party – about what was wrong with her 2024 campaign. Such an autopsy would stoke fires of negativity and apprehension about making her the party’s standard-bearer again.

The DNC’s scrapping of the autopsy is a political gift that keeps on giving to Harris as she appears to be gearing up for the 2028 campaign. A straw in the wind: The DNC national coalitions director, Gabriel Uy, recently emailed colleagues that he will leave that job in early May to “be working for VP Harris again, so let’s keep in touch.” Uy was the Nevada political director for Harris’s presidential campaign in 2019 and then deputy director of public engagement and intergovernmental affairs for Harris when she was vice president. Other high-level DNC employees will probably also be migrating to the Harris staff.

Under ongoing pressure from a variety of Democrats, Martin has begun to indicate that he will supply “top lines” summarizing the autopsy. Such a move would do little to placate critics, raising pointed questions about what was omitted and why the DNC was only willing to engage in cherry-picking instead of fully informing the party faithful.

During an MS NOW television interview in late April, while he used head-spinning illogic to defend concealing the autopsy, Martin went out of his way to say “I’m not here to protect anyone.” The interviewer had not asked if he was protecting anyone. It seemed to be an instance of “the chairman doth protest too much.”

Martin has properly emphasized that the Democratic National Committee should maintain strict neutrality in relation to presidential primaries, unlike what happened in 2016 when the DNC secretly assisted Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. A year ago, in a well-publicized dustup with David Hogg, then in a brief stint as DNC vice chair, Martin insisted that Hogg could not run a funding operation for candidates in party primaries and remain a DNC officer.

“I am determined to make sure we don’t repeat the same errors of the past,” Martin wrote in Time magazine. He explained that “I’ve spent the past decade making sure our party cannot ever again be perceived as having a thumb on the scale for one candidate.”

But now, in effect, Martin’s concealment of the autopsy report puts a thumb on the scale for one candidate: Kamala Harris.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, is published by The New Press.