Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Smearing Tulsi

Tulsi was the first candidate I contributed to, because of her as-yet-unique among Democratic candidates call for an end to all US wars.  She may have been the only candidate yet to denounce the recent attempts to coup Venezuela, and the endless US war in Syria (that we have now only partly withdrawn from...still at great condemnation from Democratic Party imperialists).  Though Bernie also calls for ending endless wars, he has never spoken as well about Venezuela and Syria, which have been endlessly demonized on US propaganda "news" (including National Propaganda Radio NPR).

I subsequently switched my support to Bernie, because he has a far richer response to domestic policy issues, AND he has been a leading candidate since before day one and still, AND he has stuck with his "defeat the billionaire establishment" message for decades and we need that kind of character who won't flake out and compromise everything as all other Presidents have when they actually reach the White House.  And, among all the other candidates, except Tulsi (and Gravel, who dropped out and endorsed both Bernie and Tulsi), he uniquely is the most antiwar among them.*  And I've had cover from some Palestinian rights advocates who also endorse Bernie.  While I believe that Tulsi means what she says, no one has more proven commitment than Bernie.

(*On Imperialism, as in domestic policy, Warren is not in the same league; though she also calls for ending Endless Wars.  But she sounds much more protective of Israeli human rights violations.  Bernie calls out Israeli violations, at least most of them--nobody except anti-Zionists still demand a 100% Right of Return for All Palestinian refugees--and needless to say none of our Presidential Candidates are anti-Zionists.)

Some time ago I had read the takedown of Tulsi at Jacobin and was quite convinced that it showed I had been duped.  However, in subsequent weeks, I followed threads and dialogues and decided that this takedown was actually racist.  There is no getting around the fact that Tulsi is a Hindu.  I would prefer it of course if she were an Athiest--as no other candidates are.  But given a choice between Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Hindu, I honestly don't care.  But some people will, especially Muslims.  As one might expect, at Jacobin the racism is very hard to pin down so it eluded me at first.  Other outlets have pumped the same message with less nuance, and of course less progressive antiwar tendency as well.

Now that Hillary has jumped into Tulsi-smearing, it's apparently OK for DailyKOS to do so as well.  I haven't had any need for DailyKOS in the past 4 years, but far too many of my friends still love it, strangely, even if they hate Hillary more than I do.  It appears most people are a lot like my late National Heathcare and Ronald Reagan loving mother--in not connecting the dots to show how one thing they like doesn't match the other.  And I'm not talking about "friendships" (we should ALL be friends).

One argument that appears in both of these misleading commentaries is the notion that it's racist to call out Islamic Extremism.

No it isn't!!!  And the USA (and Israel!) have been supporting vile Islamic Extremist groups in Syria and elsewhere for far too long (all the while claiming that they were fighting Islamic Extremism).  THIS IS PURE EVIL!!!  And Tulsi is the only Democratic politician to call this out.  (The GOP has long had Ron Paul.)

Now, it may well be true that Bannon has said a few nice things about Tulsi.  But that is his right, and it need not reflect badly on Tulsi herself either.  The war is not about personalities but ideas.   Even fools, idiots, and demagogues may have a few good ideas--in fact demagogues must have at least one good idea.

I see some claiming Bannon is a friend of Tulsi.  I don't know if that's true, and I don't care.  Benjamin Franklin said it best: We must be enemies of none.  People who follow these kinds of links attempting to smear people by their friendships should be the least trusted of all--they are hate mongers.

Likewise Fox News.  Back when I cavorted with nearby members of ISO, they had a very clear opinion about Fox News.  They said it was Far Better to watch the News on Fox than on so-called "liberal" networks like CNN and MSNBC.  On Fox News, they're not trying to hide where they're really coming from.  On CNN and MSNBC, it's all a game of diversion, fooling the lefter sheep to come back to the Imperial center.

While I respected that opinion, I couldn't much follow it, because I can hardly stand to listen to Fox News any longer than I can stand to listen to NPR.

More interesting data: when CNN and MSNBC virtually ignore Bernie, Fox News likes to cover him, and in fact was the only network to broadcast a recent and most uplifting Bernie rally in NYC.

This brings to mind 2016, when I had Republican contractors working on my house, seeing my Bernie sign, they said they respected him above all other Democrats.

Ultimately, to get anywhere near the kind of supermajorities we need to win in US politics, we are going to need to win people like this over.

I've decided that though I still can't listen to Fox News, or watch it, it might be useful to check up on what they are actually saying from time to time, as part of getting the whole picture.  THIS is how you MUST read the news, from truly oppositional sources.  Centrist sources are always fake, a thin veneer over a sheep shearing operation.  There is no such thing as Fair and Balanced, never was, never will be.


https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1186109742244139009

https://twitter.com/hashtag/BernieTulsi2020?src=hashtag_click

No comments:

Post a Comment