Monday, January 11, 2021

The Bipartisan Neoliberal Regime Is No Alternative to Trumpism and the Far-Right

The first reason for this crisis is that the US political system is not a "democracy" at all, but rather an oligarchy run by the unchecked power of corporate bribery.


Pro-Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol following a rally with President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. Trump supporters gathered in the nation's capital today to protest the ratification of President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College victory over President Trump in the 2020 election. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

On January 6th, as congressional representatives gathered in Washington to certify the Electoral College vote, a mob of thousands of far-right protestors descended upon the US Capitol in a desperate campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The Trump loyalists stormed the Capitol building as panicked congressional representatives fled, wreaking havoc and chaos for several hours until they were dispersed by the National Guard. In the aftermath, five people were dead and countless more injured.

The rally appears to have been made-up of a coterie of some of the most reactionary elements of Trump's far-right social base, including groups such as QAnonProud Boysneo-Confederates, and even some disaffected members of the working-class. The participants at the riot were united in their contention that the November 2020 election was "stolen" from Trump due to massive voter fraud.

However, the aftermath has not been very favorable to Trump or his reactionary supporters.

The attempt to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote failed miserably, with Congress reconvening on January 7th to officially confirm Joe Biden's victory. As a result, Trump was forced to acknowledge, for the first time, that he would transfer power to the Biden administration.

The storming of the US Capitol elicited widespread condemnation across the political spectrum. A Reuters poll found that 79% of all respondents—including two thirds of Trump voters—described the rioters as "criminal." Several high-ranking Trump administration officials, such as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, resigned in protest over his actions.

The reaction from Democrats was even more severe. Congressional Democrats discussed various procedures to remove Trump from office, describing him as an "imminent threat." Several House Democrats moved to invoke the 25th Amendment to replace Trump with Vice President Pence, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi moved towards impeachment.

The corporate sector weighed in as well, with the National Association of Manufacturers—a business lobby representing several powerful companies such as ExxonMobil, General Motors, and Raytheon—accusing Trump of "sedition" and demanding his resignation.

The rioters also faced a swift backlash. Major media outlets soon began posting photographs of the participants, calling on readers to find information that could lead to their identification and arrest. Several leading politicians—including Joe Biden—described them as "white supremacist domestic terrorists" and began advocating for an expansion of new anti-terrorism measures.

The backlash reached a crescendo when Twitter took the unprecedented move of permanently banning Trump from their social media platform. This was based on concerns over Trump's use of the platform to "incite violence."

Indeed, the specter of far-right political violence, instability, and authoritarianism weighed heavily on the public's conscience.

Trump is not the root cause of the problem. He is a symptom of a much larger crisis of legitimacy that US political system is experiencing after four decades of neoliberal policies of austerity, deregulation, and privatization that have hollowed out our state institutions.

This led several political figures to use war metaphors to describe the storming of the Capitol. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer likened the events to Pearl Harbor, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described it as an "attack on our country." Several commentators referred to the riot as an "insurrection," an act of "sedition," and a "coup attempt."

The threat of far-right political violence is real and steps must be taken to combat it. However, framing the unrest at the Capitol as a coup runs the risk of both misdiagnosing the problem and pointing us towards misguided solutions that will only make the problem worse.

The latest polls show that the majority of the country places blame squarely on the shoulders of Donald Trump for the riot at the Capitol. And while Trump deserves to be held responsible, isolating the blame exclusively on him misses the much larger picture of what's happening.

Trump is not the root cause of the problem. He is a symptom of a much larger crisis of legitimacy that US political system is experiencing after four decades of neoliberal policies of austerity, deregulation, and privatization that have hollowed out our state institutions. This bipartisan neoliberal consensus was carried out through the policies of Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama and has generated a growing "anti-establishment" mood among the public, leading to a lack of confidence in the legitimacy of major institutions.

As a classic demagogue, Trump plays to the very real grievances felt among the voters and channels their grievances towards false scapegoats. In response, Democrats attack Trump's demagoguery while leaving the underlying grievances unaddressed.

The battle over the 2020 presidential election results must be understood in this context.

The left has portrayed Trump's attempt to undermine the election as an aberration from the norms of American democracy. His claims of mail-in voter fraud have been widely debunked as false. Taken in isolation, Trump's actions seem to be a deranged conspiracy designed to undermine the will of the people. However, Trump's actions did not occur in a vacuum. Rather, they are a symptom of a deeper crisis in electoral politics that has been growing for several years.

The first reason for this crisis is that the US political system is not a "democracy" at all, but rather an oligarchy run by the unchecked power of corporate bribery. A 2014 Princeton study, for example, found that ordinary working people have virtually no say in government decisions.

A second reason for the political crisis is the Electoral College, which violates the basic democratic principle of "one person, one vote," and is deeply unpopular. In the past 20 years alone, the Electoral College resulted in two presidential candidates being elected despite losing the popular vote.

Trump's attempts to overturn the election, then, cannot be divorced from the broader crisis of the US political system and the Democratic establishment's subtle (but more successful!) efforts at undermining democracy.

But perhaps the most salient reason for the crisis is the electoral fraud committed by the Democratic Party establishment in recent primary campaigns. 

In 2016, the Clinton campaign relied on "Super Delegates" and other undemocratic maneuvers to rig the election against her opponent: Bernie Sanders. Then, the Democrats further undermined the general election by peddling the conspiracy that Trump was "installed" into power by Russia. The dirty tricks continued in the 2020 primaries, where the establishment candidates orchestrated a coup on Super Tuesday to secure the nomination for Biden. This was followed by the removal of Green Party candidates from the ballots in several key states.

Trump's attempts to overturn the election, then, cannot be divorced from the broader crisis of the US political system and the Democratic establishment's subtle (but more successful!) efforts at undermining democracy.

Democrats can remove Trump from office. Big Tech can ban him from their platforms. And Trump's supporters can be arrested on domestic terrorism charges. But these actions only address the symptoms and leave the underlying disease unchecked.

As long as the bipartisan neoliberal consensus remains in place, far-right political violence and instability will continue to fester.

Jonathan Rich is a PhD student in Sociology at University of California, Riverside. He teaches at Grossmont Community College in San Diego, and he is a member of the American Federation of Teachers local 1931.

 

Trump's Top Ten Billionaire Enablers

Trump didn’t get here on his own. Many have enabled him, especially the billionaires who funneled money his way and then stood by as he damaged our democracy.


Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman. (Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

We've heard plenty about the GOP members of Congress and Trump political appointees who have “enabled” Donald Trump over these four years, failing to act to stem his excesses.

But what about the billionaire donors to Trump’s campaign and his victory PACs?  Especially those who gave substantial donations in 2019 and 2020, when it was clear that Trump was causing a crisis in our democracy?

Unlike those who gave to the 2016 campaign but distanced themselves from Trump after seeing him in action, will there be any accountability for these most recent billionaire enablers of Donald Trump who saw what damage he caused–but still stood by him?

These are the billionaires who already received their whopping individual and corporate tax cuts in 2017. Yet, empowered with their money, continued to contribute to Trump for four more years.

Watch for our forthcoming IPS report and reporting on “Trump’s Billionaire Enablers.”  But here are a few initial findings:

The Institute for Policy Studies identified 63 U.S. billionaires who gave a combined $33 million to the Trump Victory Fund in the last two years. Trump Victory was a joint fundraising account for the Trump 2020 campaign and the Republican National Committee.

Chuck Collins

Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he co-edits Inequality.org, and is author of the new book, "Born on Third Base: A One Percenter Makes the Case for Tackling Inequality, Bringing Wealth Home, and Committing to the Common Good."  He is co-founder of Wealth for the Common Good, recently merged with the Patriotic Millionaires. He is co-author of "99 to 1: The Moral Measure of the Economy" and, with Bill Gates Sr., of "Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes."

Omar Ocampo is a researcher for the Program on Inequality and the Common Good. He graduated from the University ofMassachusetts Boston with a B.A. in Political Science and holds a Masters in International Relations from the American University in Cairo. His thesis focused on the politics of international oil and humanitarian intervention in Libya.

'Despicable': Outgoing Trump Administration to Designate Cuba a 'State Sponsor of Terrorism'


"Cuba has been sending doctors around the world to combat Covid-19," one observer pointed out, while another said the "Trump administration should add itself as a state sponsor of terrorism."


by Kenny Stancil, staff writer
Published on Monday, January 11, 2021
by Common Dreams





8 Comments

Doctors and nurses of Cuba's Henry Reeve International Medical Brigade take part in a farewell ceremony before traveling to Andorra to help in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, at the Central Unit of Medical Cooperation in Havana, on March 28, 2020. (Photo: Yamil Lage/AFP via Getty Images)


Cuban and American officials as well as progressives in various parts of the world on Monday blasted the soon-to-be-departed Trump administration's decision to put Cuba back on the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism," a move that critics say reveals the U.S. government's hypocritical approach to the topic of "terrorism."

"As the case of Cuba reveals, 'terrorism' means resistance to massive U.S. terrorism and refusal to bow down to the master."
—Noam Chomsky, linguist and activist

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's last-minute announcement, which reverses an Obama-era effort to improve diplomatic relations with the neighboring island nation, comes just before President-elect Joe Biden takes office on January 20.

On its way out the door, the Trump administration is "laying political land mines" for Biden—not only in Cuba but also in Yemen and Taiwan—wrote Robbie Gramer and Jack Detsch in Foreign Policy on Monday.

"The decision is a part of a blitz of 11th-hour moves by the Trump administration to push through hard-line policies championed by influential domestic political constituencies despite the complications they create for State Department lawyers, humanitarian interests abroad, and the incoming Biden administration," The Washington Post reported Monday.

Gramer and Detsch, however, suggested that the Trump administration is carrying out these actions not despite the harm they will cause the Biden administration but rather because the changes will constrain the incoming White House.

Cuba joins Iran, North Korea, and Syria on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, a list that critics say conspicuously leaves out "U.S. allies that actually do sponsor terrorist groups: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan."

The U.S. first added Cuba to its list of terrorism-sponsoring states in 1982 even as the Reagan administration provided financial support and arms to Nicaragua's right-wing counterrevolutionary forces accused of widespread human rights violations.

The State Department removed Cuba from its blacklist in 2015, part of what the New York Times called former President Barack Obama's "normalization of relations between Washington and Havana."

In his statement attempting to justify the State Department's re-designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, Pompeo accused Cuba of "repeatedly providing support for acts of international terrorism in granting safe harbor to terrorists."

As The Guardian reported, "That is partly a reference to the former Black Panther Assata Shakur who was jailed in the U.S. for the 1973 killing of a police officer and later escaped to Cuba where she was granted asylum by its then-leader Fidel Castro. It is also based on Cuba's refusal to extradite a group of guerrillas from Colombia's National Liberation Army (ELN) for alleged involvement in a 2019 bomb attack in Bogotá," as well as the nation's ongoing support for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who survived a failed U.S.-backed coup attempt in 2019.

Last week's attempted coup on U.S. soil, wherein an insurrectionary pro-Trump mob killed a police officer during a violent attack on the Capitol following weeks of lies from the president and Republican lawmakers about the legitimacy of the presidential election outcome, was also at the forefront of critics' minds on Monday.

"This designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism with less than a week to go in his presidency and after he incited a domestic terror attack on the U.S. Capitol... that's hypocrisy," Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) told The Associated Press in an interview.

Trump administration should add itself as a state sponsor of terrorism https://t.co/yu03yamCKE
— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) January 11, 2021

As journalist Reese Erlich explained in a column late last week:

In reality, Cuba has never been a state sponsor of terrorism. It supported armed insurgents in Latin America and sent troops to Angola to beat back a South African invasion of that country. But it never supported intentional attacks on civilians practiced by such groups as Al Qaeda.


Cuba's Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Rodríguez denounced Pompeo's announcement, calling it "hypocritical" and "cynical" for the U.S. to put Cuba on its list of terrorist-sponsoring states. "U.S. political opportunism," Rodríguez added, "is recognized by those who are honestly concerned about the scourge of terrorism and its victims."

According to journalist Dan Cohen, "the U.S. sponsored and protected right-wing fanatics who used actual terrorism to destroy the Cuban economy while Cuba has aided liberation movements around the world and sought peace."

Trump administration will name Cuba a "state sponsor of terrorism".
The US sponsored and protected right-wing fanatics who used actual terrorism to destroy the Cuban economy while Cuba has aided liberation movements around the world and sought peace.https://t.co/cgao2eJMQJ

— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) January 11, 2021

Erlich provided a brief snapshot of how the U.S. has weaponized the concept of "terrorism":

According to the State Department, "Terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

By that definition, the people who blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 were terrorists. Although the group attacked soldiers in a conflict zone, the marines were "noncombatant targets," not soldiers fighting in the field.

By contrast, the 2019 U.S. military drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraq militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was not terrorism because it was carried out openly, not by "clandestine agents."

How convenient! Insurgent groups can only kill soldiers in the battlefield, whereas the Pentagon can create battlefields anywhere in the world so long as it assassinates people openly.

The State Department uses gobbledygook to lump together Al Qaeda, ISIS, Marxist guerrillas, and Palestinians who are engaged in armed struggle. Its "terror list" has always reflected Washington's drive for hegemony rather than a fight against terrorism.

In recent months, Cuba has been sending doctors around the world to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. Despite being burdened for decades by harmful economic sanctions imposed by the U.S., the biggest export of the small island nation, which has a lower child mortality rate than its more powerful and hostile neighbor to the north, is medical care.

While Cuba has been sending doctors around the world to combat COVID, @SecPompeo is about to designate Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism. Despicable. #CubaNobel#CubaSavesLives#WorstSecretaryofStatehttps://t.co/xJDLce2UqB
— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) January 11, 2021

In addition to drawing attention to the fact that the U.S. has run a "gulag" in Guantánamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba for nearly two decades, CodePink's Medea Benjamin juxtaposed Cuba's international medical brigades with U.S. support for the Saudi regime's starvation-inducing blockades and deadly airstrikes on Yemen and asked, "Who is the state sponsor of terrorism?"

Disgusting hypocrits. Cuba is saving lives around the world with its medical missions. The US is killing and starving people with bombs, like in Yemen. Who is the state sponsor of terrorism? https://t.co/rTclawsN6w
— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) January 11, 2021

Paul Pillar, a retired 28-year veteran of the CIA and former deputy chief of the agency's Counterterrorism Center, told Erlich that the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism has been highly politicized since Congress created it in 1979 and included only countries aligned with the Soviet Union.

"The U.S. won't put allies on the list even though they engage in terrorist behavior," Pillar said, citing the example of Saudi Arabia's murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Instead, experts say, the U.S. uses the blacklist as a coercive tool to reward compliant countries and punish noncompliant ones or entice them to bend to the will of Washington.

Decrying the hypocrisy of the list, renowned linguist and activist Noam Chomsky told Erlich by email that the U.S. should "either eliminate it, or make it honest."

"As the case of Cuba reveals, 'terrorism' means resistance to massive U.S. terrorism and refusal to bow down to the master," Chomsky said.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
US terror designation for Yemen rebels raises famine fears

CAIRO — The Trump administration’s out-the-door decision to designate Yemen’s Iranian-backed rebels as a terror organization sparked confusion in aid agencies and warnings from the United Nations and senior Republicans on Monday that it could have a devastating humanitarian impact on a conflict-wracked nation facing the risk of famine
.
© Provided by The Canadian Press

The designation is to take effect on President Donald Trump’s last full day in office, a day before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20. Several aid groups pleaded for Biden to immediately reverse the designation, with Oxfam America’s Humanitarian Policy Lead Scott Paul saying: “Lives hang in the balance.”

The Biden transition team has not yet expressed his intentions.

The Iranian-supported Houthi rebels rule the capital and Yemen’s north where the majority of the population lives, forcing international aid groups to work with them. Agencies depend on the Houthis to deliver aid, and they pay salaries to Houthis to do so.

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the U.N.’s humanitarian operation is huge and the U.S. action “is likely to have serious humanitarian and political repercussions.”

Sen. Jim Risch, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed concern in a joint statement that without mitigating measures in place the U.S. designation “will have devastating humanitarian impacts.”


“Good intentions must not be eclipsed by significant unintended consequences,” they warned. “Yemen imports 90 per cent of its food. In light of near-famine conditions ... this designation will have a devastating effect on Yemen’s food supply and other critical imports unless the executive branch acts now to issue the necessary licenses, waivers and appropriate guidance prior to designation.”

Dujarric also said it is “imperative for the U.S. to swiftly grant the necessary licenses and exemptions,” expressing fear that the private sector will not want “to get in the crosshairs of any sort of unilateral sanctions" as it has done in past situations, “so they sort of self-censor and hold back.”

Six years of war between a U.S.-backed Arab coalition and the Houthi rebels have been catastrophic for Yemen, killing more than 112,000 people and reducing infrastructure from roads and hospitals to water and electricity networks to ruins. It began with the Houthi takeover of the north in 2014, which prompted a destructive air campaign by the Saudi-led coalition, aimed at restoring the internationally recognized government.

Most of Yemen's 30 million people rely on international aid to survive. The U.N. says 13.5 million Yemenis already face acute food insecurity, a figure that could rise to 16 million by June.

Some aid agencies said they were considering pulling out foreign staff.

They warned that even if the U.S. grants humanitarian exceptions as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promised Sunday, the move could snarl aid delivery, drive away banks, and further wreck an economy in which millions can’t afford to feed themselves.

Houthi officials were defiant over the U.S. designation.

“We are not fearful,” tweeted the head of the group’s Supreme Revolutionary Committee, Mohammed Ali al-Houthi. “America is the source of terrorism. It’s directly involved in killing and starving the Yemeni people.”

In Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said the designation was “doomed to failure” and the U.S. would eventually have to enter negotiations with the Houthis.

The U.S. designation move is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to isolate and cripple Iran. It also shows support to its close ally, Saudi Arabia, which leads the anti-Houthi coalition in the war. Saudi Arabia has advocated the terror designation, hoping it would pressure the rebels to reach a peace deal. Past rounds of peace talks and cease-fire agreements have faltered.

The Saudi Foreign Ministry welcomed the U.S. decision, expressing hope the designation would force the rebels to “seriously” return to negotiating table.

But the U.N.'s Dujarric said the designation could hamper efforts by U.N. special envoy Martin Griffiths to revive peace talks by polarizing each side's positions.

Maged al-Madhaji, the director of Yemen’s most prominent think-tank , Sanaa Center for Strategic Studies, said the designation will “shut the doors of (Houthi) attempts to win international legitimacy.” It will also ”paralyze their finances and drain money coming from regional allies,” he said.

The Houthis, who receive financial and military support from Iran, have pelted Saudi cities with missiles and drone strikes. Their opponents say they aim to impose an Iranian-style fundamentalist rule under the group’s religious and military leader, Abdel-Malek al-Houthi.

The rebels have been implicated in stealing aid and using aid access to extort concessions and money, as well as in a catalogue of human rights abuses including rape and torture of dissidents.

The U.S., one of the largest donors to Yemen, already suspended millions of dollars in aid to Houthi-controlled areas after reports of theft and looting of relief supplies. U.N. agencies have long complained of rebels stealing and rerouting food aid.

Humanitarian groups said even with special U.S. Treasury licenses promised by Pompeo to allow aid to continue flowing the impact could be disastrous.

Janti Soeripto, president of Save the Children, criticized the “chaotic manner” by which the U.S. took the decision, which she said left agencies scrambling to figure out how to deal with them.

Delays or confusion in the license-issuing process could slow or disrupt imports of food, medicine and fuel.

“Yemen’s faltering economy will be dealt a further devastating blow,” said Mohamed Abdi, Yemen director for the Norwegian Refugee Council. He said banks, businesses and donors could “become unwilling or unable to take on the risk of operating in Yemen.”

If international banks retreat from any dealings with Yemen’s Houthi-dominated banking system, aid agencies and NGOs could be crippled because they must use the banks to move funds, pay salaries and keep operations running. A main income source for individual Yemenis — remittances from relatives abroad — could also be affected.

Once the designation is in effect, the World Health Organization will carry out contingency plans to relocate its international staffers, said its country director in Sanaa, Adham Ismail.

He said the U.S. move will also "make it harder to get donations and deliver health services to Yemenis under Houthi control.

___

Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.

Maggie Michael And Samy Magdy, The Associated Press

'Wanton Cruelty': Pompeo to Declare Houthis a Terrorist Group, Sparking Fears of Worsening Famine in Yemen

Oxfam called the designation "a counter-productive and dangerous policy that will put innocent lives at risk."


Girls collect water from a well in Hajjah province, north Yemen on December 11, 2020. As a result of the U.S. State Department's decision, Oxfam noted, "humanitarian aid, goods, and personnel will be blocked from entering northern Yemen, where 70% of the population lives." (Photo: Mohammed Al-Wafi/Xinhua via Getty)

Advocates for a more just U.S. foreign policy on Monday denounced Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's decision to designate Yemen's Houthis as a terrorist group, a move that progressives say will disrupt the ability of humanitarian agencies to provide life-saving aid in an effort to alleviate widespread civilian suffering generated by the U.S.-backed Saudi regime's assault on the country.

In a statement released Monday, Oxfam criticized Pompeo's decision to label the Houthis a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" (FTO), calling it a "counter-productive and dangerous policy that will put innocent lives at risk."

"This designation will not help to resolve the conflict or provide justice for the violations and abuses committed during the war," Oxfam continued. "It will only compound the crisis for millions of Yemenis fighting for their survival."

Win Without War policy director Kate Kizer on Monday condemned the Trump administration for "levying baseless terrorism designations on the Houthis in Yemen," describing the move as "nothing more than a cynical, last-ditch attempt to prevent the Biden administration from reversing Trump's disastrous Yemen and Iran policies."

"This decision is a devastating blow to the prospects of peace, and a reckless instigation of further suffering in what is already the world's largest humanitarian crisis," Kizer added.

number of analysts warned in the final two months of 2020 that a terrorist designation for the Houthis, which Pompeo was considering at the time, would "make an already difficult situation worse," in the words of Brookings Institution president John Allen and senior fellow Bruce Riedel.

"There's no quick or easy way to end Yemen's civil war," wrote Crisis Group president Robert Malley and analyst Peter Salisbury in a late November op-ed in The Washington Post. "There are, however, ways to prolong it, one of those being the Trump administration's apparent decision to designate the Houthi movement as terrorists."

And yet, after what Post reporter John Hudson called a "major internal battle regarding [its] humanitarian impact in Yemen," Pompeo decided this past weekend to move ahead with declaring the Houthis a terrorist group, the newspaper reported Sunday night.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus claimed that Pompeo's move "will further isolate terrorists in Yemen while the United States takes available steps to facilitate continued humanitarian aid." But Oxfam countered that "given the far-reaching nature of terrorism designations, the humanitarian response and economy in Yemen will be drastically impacted."

Although the State Department announced that the U.S. is preparing "to work with relevant officials at the United Nations, with international and non-governmental organizations, and other international donors to address" the devastating humanitarian implications of the FTO designation, the Post reported that Pompeo is proceeding before having finalized the licenses and guidance that would permit the continued delivery of aid.

"If true, it is difficult to imagine a more irresponsible decision," said Refugees International vice president Hardin Lang, one of many critics who are sounding the alarm that the Trump administration's actions are likely to undermine the flow of aid and intensify suffering.

The mere threat of a designating the Houthis as terrorists caused food imports in the country to drop by 25% in November, according to U.N. Under-Secretary Mark Lowcock.

The State Department's decision is "terrible news for Yemen," Annelle Sheline, a Middle East research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said on Sunday night. "The Saudi-led blockade has already resulted in mass starvations," Sheline said. "Eighty percent of the population live under Houthi control. The designation will prevent aid organizations from delivering desperately needed food."

Characterizing Houthis as terrorists will exacerbate "an already shocking level of hunger in Yemen," Human Rights Watch researcher Afrah Nasser explained on Monday. As a result of the Trump administration's latest actions, Nasser added, the U.S. "risk[s] complicity in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths."

According to Lang, "the litmus test for U.S. policy on Yemen is simple: does it help end the conflict, or keep alive the millions of suffering Yemenis? The designation fails on both counts."

Oxfam pointed out that there are "many options available for identifying and punishing terrorists," but the route pursued by the Trump administration "is by far the most severe—and the most deadly for Yemeni families. It will block U.S. humanitarian aid, goods, and personnel from entering northern Yemen, where 70% of the population lives, and substantially reduce them throughout the rest of the country."

"The consequences will be felt acutely across a country also hit hard by extreme hunger, cholera and Covid-19, as banks, businesses, and humanitarian donors become unwilling or unable to take on the risk of operating in Yemen," Oxfam noted. "Every day these designations remain in place will compound the suffering of Yemen's most vulnerable families."

Foreign policy analysts and humanitarian groups urged President-elect Joe Biden to immediately reverse the Trump administration's designation of the Houthis as terrorists. "In this instance," said Oxfam, "acting 'on day one' cannot be only a figure of speech, as lives hang in the balance."

Sheline noted that "people are going to die as a result of this, even if Biden lifts the designation as soon as he comes to office."

Drawing attention to the timing of Pompeo's move, Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of foreign policy at Brookings, said Monday that "Trump's foreign policy will end as it began: with wanton cruelty and disastrous fallout for the Middle East and U.S. interests there."

The Martians of Wall Street Have Invaded

As Covid-19 grew ever worse while 2020 ended, the stock market reached heights that hadn’t been seen before. Ever.


Published on Monday, January 11, 2021
by TomDispatch

Today, the top 1% of Americans possess more wealth than the whole of the middle class, a phenomenon first true in 2010 and still the reality of our moment. 
(Photo: Scott Beale on Flickr)

Sometimes things only make sense when seen through a magnifying lens. As it happens, I’m thinking about reality, the very American and global reality clearly repeating itself as 2021 begins.

We all know, of course, that we’re living through a once-in-a-century-style pandemic; that millions of people have lost their jobs, a portion of which will never return; that the poorest among us, who can withstand such acute economic hardship the least, have been slammed the hardest; and that the global economy has been kneecapped, thanks to a battery of lockdowns, shutdowns, restrictions of various sorts, and health-related concerns. More sobering than all of this: more than 360,000 Americans (and counting) have already lost their lives as a result of Covid-19 with, according to public health experts, far more to come.

And yet, as if in some galaxy far, far away, there also turns out to be another, so much more upbeat side to this equation. As Covid-19 grew ever worse while 2020 ended, the stock market reached heights that hadn’t been seen before. Ever.

Meanwhile, again in the thoroughly cheery news column, banks in 2021 will be able to resume their march toward billions of dollars in share buybacks, courtesy of the Federal Reserve opting to support such a bank-and-stock-market stimulus. The Fed’s green light for this activity on December 18th will allow mega-banks to return to those share buybacks (which constitute 70% of the capital payout that they provide shareholders). In June 2020, the Fed had banned the practice ostensibly to help them better navigate risks caused by the pandemic.

Those very financial institutions can now pour money into purchasing their own stocks again rather than, say, into loans to struggling small businesses endangered by pandemic-instigated economic disaster. As soon as Wall Street got the good news from the Fed as 2020 ended, JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s biggest bank, wasted no time in announcing its intent to buy a staggering $30 billion of its own shares in the new year. And as if by magic, those shares leapt 5% that very day. Other mega-banks followed suit, as did their share prices.

The more that individuals, rather than corporations, shoulder the burden of tax revenues, the greater the inherent inequality in society.

Now, for reasons you’ll soon understand, take a little trip back in history with me to the eve of Halloween, 1938, when Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre dramatized his adaptation of H.G. Wells’ 1898 sci-fi-meets-dystopia-meets-imperialism novel, The War of the Worlds, on the radio. As Martians “invaded” New Jersey (it had been London in the novel) with mayhem in mind, panic evidently ensued among some radio listeners who thought they were hearing perfectly real reports about an alien invasion of Planet Earth. Later accounts suggest that the media blew that reaction out of proportion (“fake news,” 1938-style?), yet people who tuned in late and missed the set-up about the fictitious nature of the program did indeed panic.

And it’s not hard to understand why they might have done so at that moment. There had already been surprises galore. The world, after all, had barely recovered from the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression that followed. It was also still reeling from the fiery Hindenburg disaster of 1937 in which a German airship blew up in New Jersey, as well as from the escalation of tensions and hostilities in both Asia and Europe that would lead to World War II. Perhaps people already equated or conflated the Martian invasion on the radio with fantasies about a potential German invasion of this country. In some papers, after all, reports on the reaction to Welles’s performance were set right next to news of war clouds brewing in Europe and Asia. With or without Welles, people were on edge.

Whatever the case, fear has been both a great motivator and an anxiety provoker when it comes to the media, whether in 1938 or today. At the moment, the focus is on economic and health-related fears in all-too-ample supply. It is also on the disconnect that exists between the real economic world that most of us live in and turbo-boosted stock markets. These distorted markets are the result of wealth inequality that once would have been unimaginable in this country. In a way, economically speaking, you might say that today we’re suffering the equivalent of an invasion from Mars.

From the Financial Crisis to the Pandemic

It’s not hard these days to imagine the chaos people would feel if their lives or livelihoods were threatened by an external, uncontrollable force like those Martians. After all, we’re in a pandemic age in which the gaps between the rich, the poor, and the middle class are being reinforced in endlessly stunning ways, a world in which some people have the means to remain remarkably safe, secure, and alive, while others have no means at all.

Covid-19 is not, of course, from Mars or sent by aliens, but in terms of its impact, it’s as if it were. And the pandemic is, in the end, only exacerbating, sometimes in radical ways, problems that already were bad enough, particularly economic inequality.

Remember that, long before Covid-19 hit, the financial crisis of 2008 was met by a multi-trillion-dollar Wall Street bailout. At the same time, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to zero, while purchasing U.S. Treasury and mortgage bonds from the very banks that had sparked the disaster. Its own assets then rose from $870 billion to $4.5 trillion between August 2007 and August 2015. On the other hand, the U.S. economy never quite reached a growth level of, on average, more than 2% annually in the years after that near collapse, even as the stock market regained all its losses and so much more. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, aided by an ultra-loose monetary policy, steadily rose from a financial-crisis low of 6,926 on March 5, 2009 to 27,090 by March 4, 2020, which was when Covid-19 briefly trashed its rally.

However, within a month of the market dip that followed widespread shutdowns, its climb was refortified by similar but larger maneuvers, as Federal Reserve policy was once again deployed to save the rich under the auspices of saving the economy. Rally 2.0 took the Dow to a new record of 30,606.48 as 2020 closed.

On the other side of reality, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that, according to recent Federal Reserve reports, the U.S. wealth gap continued to widen dramatically as economic inequality increased yet again in 2020 thanks to the coronavirus pandemic. That’s because the health and economic devastation it inflicted affected low-wage service workers, low-income earners, and people of color so much more than the upper-middle class and elite upper class.

Meanwhile, as 2020 ended, the richest 10% of Americans owned more than 88% of the outstanding shares of companies and mutual funds in the U.S. The top 1% also controlled more than 88 times the wealth of the bottom 50% of Americans. Simply put, the less you had, the less you could afford to lose any of it. Indeed, the combined net worth of the top 1% of Americans was $34.2 trillion (about one-third of all U.S. household wealth), while the total for the bottom half was $2.1 trillion (or 1.9% of that wealth).

And yet, American billionaires scored monumentally during the pandemic, due particularly to their lofty position in the stock market. The planet’s 2,200 or so billionaires got wealthier by $1.9 trillion in 2020 alone and were worth about $11.4 trillion in mid-December 2020 (up from $9.5 trillion a year earlier). Twenty-first-century tycoons like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos raked it in specifically because of all the money pouring into shares of their stock. Even bipartisan congressional stimulus measures meant for necessary relief turned into a chance to elevate fortunes at the highest echelons of society.

If you want to grasp inequality in the pandemic moment, consider this: while the market soared, more than 25.5 million Americans were the recipients of federal unemployment benefits. The S&P 500 stock market index added a total of $14 trillion in market value in 2020. In essentially another universe, the number of people who lost their jobs due to the pandemic and didn’t regain them was about 10 million. And that figure doesn’t even count people who can’t go to work because they have to take care of others, their workplace is restricted, or they’re home-schooling their kids.

The Martians and the Inequality Gap

In The War of the Worlds, H.G. Wells evokes a species—humanity—rendered helpless in the face of a force greater than itself and beyond its control. His depiction of the grim relationship between the Martians and the humans they were suppressing (meant to remind readers of the relationship between British imperialists and those they suppressed in distant lands) cast an eerie light on the power and wealth gap in Great Britain and around the world at the turn of the twentieth century.

The book was written in the Gilded Age, when rapid economic growth, particularly in the United States, bred a new class of “robber barons.” Like the twenty-first-century version of such beings, they, too, made money from their money, while the economic status of workers slipped ever lower. It was an early version of a zero-sum game in which the spoils of the system were increasingly beyond the reach of so many. Those at the top ferociously accumulated wealth, while the majority of the rest of the population barely got by or drowned.

A crisis of inequality had been sparked by the Industrial Revolution itself, which started in England and then crossed the Atlantic. By the late nineteenth century, America’s “robber barons” were insanely wealthy. As economist Thomas Piketty wrote, there was a steeper increase in wealth inequality during the Gilded Age than ever before in American history. In 1810, the top 1% of Americans held 25% of the country’s total wealth; between 1870 and 1910 that share leapt to 45%.

Today, the top 1% of Americans possess more wealth than the whole of the middle class, a phenomenon first true in 2010 and still the reality of our moment. By 2018, about 75% of the $113 trillion in aggregate U.S. household assets were financial ones; that is, tied up in stocks, ETF’s, 401Ks, IRAs, mutual funds, and similar investments. The majority of nonfinancial assets in that mix was in real estate.

Even before the pandemic, only the richest 20% of American households had recovered fully (or, in the case of the truly wealthy, more than fully) from the financial crisis. That’s mostly because since that crisis, fewer households had participated in the stock market or owned real estate and so had no chance to capitalize on increases in the values of either.

Much of the appreciation in stock market and real-estate values has been directly or indirectly related to the Fed’s actions. By the end of December 2020, its balance sheet had increased by $3.164 trillion, reaching a total of $7.35 trillion, 63% more than its book at the height of the decade following the 2008 disaster.


Its ultra-loose policies made it cheaper to borrow money, but not as attractive to invest it in low-interest-rate, less risky securities like Treasury bonds. As a result, the Fed incentivized those with extra money to grow it through quicker, often riskier investments in the stock market or real estate. By 2020, there were bidding wars for suburban houses by urbanites seeking refuge from coronavirus-stricken cities with all-cash offers, something beyond the reach of most traditional buyers.

Though Congress passed two much-needed Covid-related stimulus packages that extended unemployment benefits, while offering two one-off payments and a Paycheck Protection Program support for smaller businesses, the impact of those acts paled in comparison to the tax breaks and power of investment the stock market provided the well-off and corporate kingpins.

While markets leapt to record highs, poverty in the United States also rose last year from 9.3% in June to 11.7% in November 2020. That added nearly eight million Americans to the ranks of the poor, even as America’s 659 billionaires held double the wealth of the 165 million poorest Americans.

The Martians Are Here

The gap between incoming and outgoing federal funds rose, too. The U.S. deficit increased by $3.3 trillion during 2020. The size of the public debt issued by the Treasury Department reached $27.5 trillion. Total federal revenue was $3.45 trillion, while the corporate tax part of that was just $221 billion, or a paltry 6.4%. What that means is that in an ever more unequal America, 93.6% of the money flowing into the government’s till comes from individuals, not corporations.

And though many larger and mid-size corporations filed for bankruptcy protection due to coronavirus related shutdowns, the brunt of absolute closures hit smaller local businesses — from restaurants to hair salons to health-and-wellness shops — much harder, only exacerbating economic disparity at the community level.

In other words, the real problem when it comes to inequality isn’t the total amount of taxes received versus money spent in a time of crisis, but the composition of federal revenue that’s wildly out of whack (something the pandemic has only made worse). Take the defense sector, for example. The U.S. government doled out $738 billion to the Pentagon for fiscal year 2020. The contracts to defense-related private companies in the last year for which data was available, fiscal year 2018, totaled roughly 62% of a full defense budget of $579 billion, or $358 billion. Now imagine this: that amount alone dwarfed the total of all corporate taxes flowing into the U.S. Treasury in 2019.


Inequality is about the disparity between people and countries with respect to income, wealth, or power. The more that corporations keep relative to their bottom line when compared with ordinary citizens, the more the stock market rises relative to the real economy. The more that individuals, rather than corporations, shoulder the burden of tax revenues, the greater the inherent inequality in society. The more that financial assets appreciate on money seeking to multiply itself in the quickest way possible (think of it as like a virus), the greater the distortion created.

The Fed can focus on its inflation-versus-full-employment dual-mandate all it wants, while pushing policies that distort the value of the real economy compared to financial assets. But the reality is that the more those Fed-inflated assets grow relative to real ones, the greater the inequality gap. That’s plain math and it’s the ugly essence of the United States of America as 2021 begins.

The market doesn’t care about politics. It’s a creature that acts in accordance with the goals of its largest participants. The real economy, on the other hand, requires far more effort — planning, prioritizing, and executing programs and projects that can produce tangible profits. We’re a long way from a world that puts investment in the real economy ahead of those soaring financial markets. That gap, in fact, might as well be like the distance between Earth and Mars. In the midst of a pandemic, as billionaires only grow richer and the markets soar, can there be any question that we’re experiencing a Martian invasion?




Nomi Prins is a former Wall Street executive and author. Her newest book is "Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World" (2019). Her previous books include "All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power" (2015) and "Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America" (2006). Follow her on Twitter: @nomiprins