For a man who claims to be a supporter of former President Donald Trump and his running-mate J.D. Vance, this is quite a conundrum. Contrary to the beliefs of Neoconservative-leaning Republicans like Miller, the Trump-Vance ticket has embraced authentically America First positions when it comes to reckless funding for Ukraine and sympathy for American workers. Unfortunately for Miller, it seems that his party is leaving him behind and this could prove detrimental for him in his upcoming bid for reelection.

While some pollsters believe that Miller is “almost certain to win in Ohio’s 7th district,” most, if not all, of these polls ignore the atypical nature of the race itself. Instead of simply facing one challenger in the general election, Miller is facing two. First, Miller is facing Democratic challenger, Matthew Diemer, who lost against Miller in the previous election cycle and will likely lose again. Second, Miller is facing the newly-independent former U.S. Representative and Cleveland mayor, Dennis Kucinich, who could truly shake up the election.

Kucinich, a veteran anti-war politician who ran for President in 2004 and 2008, is a true populist who may be able to secure considerable votes from disaffected America First Republicans, Libertarians, and anti-establishment left wingers critical of U.S. military adventurism. This united front coalition of figures such as Ron Paul, Jimmy Dore, Judge Napolitano, Aaron Maté, and Kim Iverson could prove detrimental for Miller in a general election if Kucinich plays his cards right. Additionally, Kucinich was the former campaign manager for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. Kennedy, who has since dropped out of the race and aligned himself with Trump, may be one of the reasons why Trump has not openly endorsed Miller as he once did in 2022.

Ultimately, Rep. Max Miller’s politics are misaligned with the shifting priorities of the America First movement. His loyalty to the GOP establishment on issues like foreign aid and fiscal conservatism undermines his claim to populism. Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich presents a compelling alternative for anti-war voters across the political spectrum. As Miller clings to outdated Republican talking points, he risks alienating the very base he claims to represent. This race may well turn into a referendum not just on Miller’s record, but on what it truly means to stand for “America First.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by J.D. Hester.

A quote, wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln, reads:

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Well, that may be true but what is also true is that you can fool most of the people (followers of politicians, political parties, religions, celebrities, stars, social media influencers, businesspersons, and so on) most of the time because followers place blind trust in their heroes, heroines, religious leaders, influencers, etc.

This was visible during the quadrennial spectacles called Republican National Convention (July 15 to July 18, 2024, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin) and Democratic National Convention (August 19 to August 22, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois).

Of course, there is a difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party: the Republicans are overtly hostile and will screw you unashamedly in broad day light without any kind of lubrication or apology.

The Democrats are, in that respect, a bit less rough. They’ll beg your pardon; would plead with you to understand the criticality of the situation; but will screw you, nonetheless — of course, in a dim light with a bit of lubricant.

Both the conventions took place during the ongoing Israeli slaughter, displacements, starvation of the Palestinians in Gaza since October 12, 2023. Both parties have supported the Israeli carnage. There is a division in the Democratic Party about supporting Israel, but the strong voices are few and many a times become victims of the Israel Lobby. One of the powerful group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has spent more than $100 million in the 2024 election campaign: $15 million was spent to defeat US House Representatives Jamal Bowman who was critical of Israeli genocide of Gazans and $9 million to oust Cori Bush, another critic of Israeli war.

Danaka Katovich, National Co-Director CodePink, describes how a woman outside the convention center calling out the names of the children killed in Gaza was ignored and laughed at.

“There was a young woman that sat outside the exit of the Democratic National Convention on its third night reading the names of the children Israel has killed in the last ten months. She did it for hours, until her speaker battery died. She did it alone, taking care to pronounce every child’s name correctly and to say their age at the time of their murder. Without her, many of the DNC guests wouldn’t necessarily be confronted with the carnage members of their party is carrying out.

“Outside the gates of the DNC I saw a young woman making sure the children of Palestine weren’t just numbers, and I saw people laughing at her for doing so. They laughed loudly and mocked her voice. They mocked the names of the dead babies. They yelled at her to leave them alone. They left the coronation ceremony livid that they had to even hear about Gaza.”

Things were not too different inside the convention center, either.

The DNC allowed the parents of one of the hostages held by Hamas to speak and highlight their plight but no Palestinian was permitted to talk about the killing of over 41,000 [1] Palestinians (33% of them children and 18.4% women) and about ceasefire. Even a speech which included support for Kamala Harris was disallowed.

The speakers who did talk about Gaza and Palestine knew very well that their speeches were not going to make any difference.

AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez):

“She [Vice President Kamala Harris] is working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and bringing hostages home.”

After five and a half years in the US Congress and as an active member of the Democratic Party, progressive AOC [2] knows damn well that no efforts on part of Kamala or Biden administration is needed to secure a ceasefire — the US just has to stop money and arms flow to Israel and that’s it.

On August 21, AOC posted on X:

“Just as we must honor the humanity of hostages, so too must we center the humanity of the 40,000 Palestinians killed under Israeli bombardment. To deny that story is to participate in the dehumanization of Palestinians. The @DNC must change course and affirm our shared humanity.

Bernie Sanders:

“We must end this horrific war in Gaza. Bring home the hostages and demand an immediate ceasefire.”

Two progressive members devoted a total of 31 words to the more than 10 month old continuing tragedy without mentioning the over 41,000 Palestinians killed!

Senator Raphael Warnock (Georgia) talked about children’s (including Gaza’s) safety.

“I need all of my neighbors’ children to be okay — poor inner-city children in Atlanta and poor children in Appalachia.” “I need the poor children of Israel and the poor children of Gaza, I need Israelis and Palestinians, I need those in the Congo, those in Haiti, those in Ukraine. I need American children on both sides of the tracks to be OK. Because we are all God’s children.”

The speakers, including (Barack Obama), touched on various topics, but as Lorraine Ali in Los Angeles Times observed,

“But little was said about Gaza or Israel, and the silence spoke volumes. Let’s talk about everything but that war.”

When hawkish Harris opened her mouth she roared about defending the security of the most powerful and technologically advanced country, Israel, against the broken Palestinians.

“With respect to the war in Gaza, President Biden and I are working around the clock because now is the time to get a hostage deal and cease-fire done.

“Let me be clear: I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that the terrorist organization Hamas caused on Oct. 7.

“Including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival. At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again.

“The scale of suffering is heartbreaking. President Biden and I are working to end this war such that – Israel is secure – the hostages are released – the suffering in Gaza ends – and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity.”

Hamas of the Israeli occupied Gaza is a “terrorist organization” but there is no mention of who caused the loss of “so many innocent lives” or who is making “desperate, hungry people” flee for “safety, over and over again.”
No mention of Israel. This, from one who is the would-be next President of the US.

She said she and Biden are “working around the clock.” The clock must be out of order. The war will only stop when the US decides to halt its support.

Back in July, Netanyahu addressed the US Congress. Many Democrats abstained, Harris included. But then the very next day, she met Netanyahu in private. Her facial expressions didn’t show she was angry in any manner. Now look at Obama’s picture with Netanyahu where Obama’s displeasure is visible. Netanyahu was trying to undermine Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The statement by Harris after her meeting with Netanyahu was the same diplomatic bullshit. [3]

The conventions are basically a feel good exercise to create excitement and hope among supporters and to denigrate and make fun of the opposition. The Democrats did exactly that; made fun of former president and the current Republican Party presidential candidate, Donald Trump and frightened, rightly so, their followers/die hard supporters with fascism replacing “democracy” if Trump gets reelected.

The Democrats, however, didn’t remind their supporters that they (the Democrats), when in power, do act in a fascist manner overseas with their wars, sanctions, embargoes, blockades, seizing money and gold belonging to countries they don’t like.

On domestic issues the Democrats and Republicans differ on certain issues but both support capitalism and get plenty of money from the corporations. The hands of both parties are drenched with blood of foreigners, including children and women. Even within the US, the Democrats are cruel with many segments of the society. Republicans are openly cruel.

Notes

[1] After every Israeli deadly crime, the usual statement, actually a warning, from its major supporter, the United States, is,

“We are engaged in intense diplomacy pretty much around the clock, with a very simple message: All parties must refrain from escalation.”

That is, Israel’s murderous act should remain unpunished or else we’ll jump in to defend Israel. The above warning was for Iran to refrain from any retaliation against Israel which had assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had also ordered killing of Lebanese militia group Hezbollah’s commander Fuad Shukr.

[2] The Democratic leadership was using one of their presidents’ tactic by inviting AOC to speak and thus mainstreaming her but also blunting her voice. President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908 – 1973) said the following about FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

“It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”

[3] A couple of paragraphs from Harris’ statement;

“I also expressed with the prime minister my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza, including the death of far too many innocent civilians.  And I made clear my serious concern about the dire humanitarian situation there, with over 2 million people facing high levels of food insecurity and half a million people facing catastrophic levels of acute food insecurity.

“What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating — the images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third, or fourth time.  We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies.  We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering.  And I will not be silent.”

Lip service completed, let the one-sided hostilities continue …

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by B.R. Gowani.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

To a warmonger, every problem calls for a war.

WAR! WAR! FOREVER WAR! UNENDING WAR!

Our current leaders are hypnotized by war. They lack the vision and resourcefulness to consider negotiation and cooperation. Peace is not in their thoughts. ‘Peace’ is not in their vocabulary. They are addicted to war. They are obsessed with war.

The lesson we must take from this is this: Talking to them, trying to change their minds, trying to alter their policies and methods, is a complete waste of time. It’s like yelling at storm clouds and telling them to stop raining. It’s like telling a bumble bee it should get a pilot license. It’s like talking to a wall and expecting a reply.

Which means, there is only one sensible, rational, effective course of action …

Current U.S. leadership, at all levels — we’re probably looking at 99% of those now in positions of power — must be replaced.

This is the only possible way to stop U.S. aggression and wanton promotion of chaos and violence in the world.

This must be the entire focus of peace activism going forward. We have no choice in the matter. The record is clear — an unblemished record of total failure to stop, or even slow down, the war machine.

Make no mistake about it! Replacing these misfits, psychopaths, sociopaths, and enemies of peace now in power, will not be easy.

But it can — and must — be done!

Our survival as a nation, perhaps the survival of the entire human race is at stake!

Here’s what it will take.

The two major parties will not give us the choices we need to make. Both the Republicans and Democrats are in the pockets of the military-industrial complex. And to bolster their commitment to this vast money laundering enterprise, where hundreds of billions of dollars end up in the coffers of giant defense companies and ultimately into the bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy, both major parties are fanatically committed to making the U.S. an empire.

If we want peace, we will have to elect peace candidates. And to elect peace candidates, we must on our own initiative put peace candidates on the ballot.

Identifying and choosing alternatives to the pro-war establishment candidates will not be complicated. At least for now, here’s the litmus test, consisting of three questions to be put to prospective candidates:

If a candidate answers ‘yes’ to all three, he or she deserves our full support and our vote. We then do everything it takes to get this person on the ballot. There are three ways to get them on the ballot:

First option is to use primaries. That is, run them in the next primary against one of the major party candidates.

Second option is to run the candidates as “third party”, e.g. as a Green or Libertarian or other minor party candidate.

Third option is to put them on the ballot as an independent. Right now, this is what Dennis Kucinich is doing in Ohio’s 7th District.

Whatever strategy we adopt certainly will require some serious dedication and hard work. We’ll have to organize locally and talk to voters face-to-face, we’ll have to marshal all of the power of social media, we’ll have to badger local media for news coverage. We’ll have to organized rallies and bake sales, visit churches, convalescent homes, community clubs and organizations.

But recognize: this is democracy at its best! It is citizens, locally, community-by-community, working together to signal their priorities, put their values before the public, and introduce real choice at the polls.

Once peace candidates are on the ballot, then it’s up to the voting public. If we the people want to end the wars, reverse the rampant militarization of our society, if we truly want peace, then …

WE ONLY VOTE FOR PEACE CANDIDATES!

It’s that simple.

This is how we “fire” the warmongers who now populate the halls of Congress and other seats of power.

This is how we stop the squandering of our national wealth, the theft of our money!

This is how we inaugurate a nation at peace!

And guess what?

The whole world will thank us!

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John Rachel.

During the  weekend of June 10-11 in Vienna, Austria, over 300 people representing peace organizations from 32 countries came together for the first time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine to demand an end to the fighting. In a formal conference declaration, participants declared, “We are a broad and politically diverse coalition that represents peace movements and civil society. We are firmly united in our belief that war is a crime against humanity and there is no military solution to the current crisis.”

To amplify their call for a ceasefire, Summit participants committed themselves to organizing Global Weeks of Action–protests, street vigils and political lobbying–during the days of September 30-October 8.

Summit organizers chose Austria as the location of the peace conference because  Austria is one of only a few neutral non-NATO states left in Europe. Ireland, Switzerland and Malta are a mere handful of neutral European states, now that previously neutral states Finland has joined NATO and Sweden is next in line. Austria’s capital, Vienna, is known as “UN City,” and is also home to the Secretariat of the OSCE (the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), which monitored the ceasefire in the Donbas from the signing of the Minsk II agreement in 2015 until the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Surprisingly, neutral Austria turned out to be quite hostile to the Peace Summit. The union federation caved in to pressure from the Ukrainian Ambassador to Austria and other detractors, who smeared the events as a fifth column for the Russian invaders. The ambassador had objected to some of the speakers, including world-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs and European Union Parliament member Clare Daly.

Even the press club, where the final press conference was scheduled, canceled at the last minute. The Austrian liberal/left newspaper Der Standard piled on, panning the conference both beforehand, during and afterwards, alleging that the speakers were too pro-Russian. Undaunted, local organizers quickly found other locations.The conference took place in a lovely concert center, and the press conference in a local cafe.

The most moving panel of the conference was the one with representatives from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, who risked their lives to participate in the Summit. Yurii Sheliazhenko, secretary treasurer of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, is unable to leave the country and therefore spoke to attendees from Kyiv via Zoom.

Like many Ukrainians, I am a victim of aggression of Russian army, which bombs my city, and a victim of human rights violations by the Ukrainian army, which tries to drag me to the meat grinder, denying my right to refuse to kill, to leave the country for my studies in University of Münster … Think about it: all men from 18 to 60 are prohibited from leaving the country, they are hunted on the streets and forcibly abducted to the army’s serfdom.

Sheliazhenko told the Summit that the Armed Forces of Ukraine had tried to deny conscientious objector status to Ukrainian war resisters, but relented when international pressure demanded that the Ukrainian military recognize rights secured under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Several groups at the Summit pledged to provide support for conscientious objectors from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, and also took up a collection for Ukrainian families lacking access to clean water following the recent destruction of the Kakhovka dam.

Highlights of the Summit also included remarks by representatives from the Global South, who came from China, Cameroon, Ghana, Mexico and Bolivia. Bolivia’s Vice President David Choquehuanca inspired the crowd as he spoke of the need to heed the wisdom of indigenous cultures and their mediation practices.

Many speakers said the real impetus to end this war will come from the Global South, where politicians can see the widespread hunger and inflation that this conflict is causing, and are taking leading roles in offering their services as mediators.

Almost all of Europe was represented, including dozens from Italy, the country  mobilizing the continent’s largest peace demonstrations, with over 100,000 protesters. Unlike in the United States, where the demonstrations have been small, Italian organizers have successfully built coalitions that include trade unions and the religious community, as well as traditional peace groups. Their advice to others was to narrow and simplify their demands in order to broaden their appeal and build a mass anti-war movement.

The eight-person U.S. delegation included representatives from CODEPINK, Peace in Ukraine, the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Veterans for Peace. U.S. retired colonel and diplomat Ann Wright was a featured speaker, along with former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who joined remotely.

Despite the uniform bottom line of the participants, which was a call for peace talks, there were plenty of disagreements, especially in the workshops. Some people believed that we should continue to send weapons while pushing for talks; others called for an immediate end to weapons transfers. Some insisted on calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops, while others believed that should be the result of negotiations, not a pre-condition. Some put more blame on the role of NATO expansion and the interference of the U.S. in Ukraine’s internal affairs, while others said the blame belongs exclusively at the doorstep of the Russian invaders.

Some of these differences were reflected in discussions surrounding the final declaration, where there was plenty of back and forth about what should and should not be mentioned. There were strong calls to condemn NATO provocations and the role of the U.S./UK in sabotaging early attempts at mediation. These sentiments, along with others condemning the West, were left out of the final document, which some criticized as too bland. References to NATO provocations that led to the Russian invasion were deleted and replaced with the following language:

“The institutions established to ensure peace and security in Europe fell short, and the failure of diplomacy led to war. Now diplomacy is urgently needed to end the war before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.”

But the most important segment of the final document and the gathering itself was the call for further actions.

“This weekend should be seen as just the start,” said organizer Reiner Braun. “We need more days of action, more gatherings, more outreach to students and environmentalists, more educational events. But this was a great beginning of global coordination.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Medea Benjamin.

The distinguished roster of 22 respondents from politics, academia, media, law, and social activism includes Noam Chomsky, Larry Wilkerson, Paul Craig Roberts, Mark Skidmore, Coleen Rowley, William J. Astore, Abby Martin, Dan Kovalik, Lee Camp, Finian Cunningham, Michael T. Klare, Cynthia McKinney, Scott Ritter, Joe Lombardo, Bruce Gagnon, Norman Solomon, Peter Kuznick, Ajamu Baraka, Margaret Kimberley, Matthew Hoh, Garland Nixon, and Dennis Kucinich.

Rachel’s 15 question topics are: 1. The Atomic Scientists doomsday clock; 2. The US as a force for peace, justice, etc., or not; 3. The reasoning behind Russian and Chinese military action; 4. The US need for empire, or not; 5. US national electoral politics since 2014 and the demonization of Russia; 6. Taiwan and the possibility of war between US and China; 7. Syria and the US occupation; 8. Citizen influence on foreign policy; 9. Democracy and hidden government operations (CIA operations, psyops, regime-change ops, etc.); 10. Government abuses of power and the possibility of legal redress; 11. Who in fact makes foreign policy; 12. The nature of US foreign relations and the US practice of demonizing target countries; 13. Military spending; 14. What changes in US policy and priorities need to be made; 15. What options are there for change if US policy makers are in fact indifferent to what US citizens think.

What makes this book unique is that it departs from the usual organization of such anthologies. Instead of a collection of separate interviews, the responses to each of Rachel’s fifteen questions are presented together, question by question. In other words, Question #1 is followed by all the responses to Question #1, then Question #2 is followed by all the responses to Question #2, and so on. This lets the reader consider and compare answers. It also makes the book easy to dip in and out of. It’s often thrilling to see these well-informed and often eloquent voices opining in rapid succession.

Here is a sampling of the text: Questions #3 and #11, followed by a few of the responses.

Question #3:

Here’s a chicken-or-egg question: The U.S. accuses both Russia and China of rapidly expanding their military capabilities, claiming its own posturing and increase in weaponry is a response to its hostile adversaries, Russia and China. Both Russia and China claim they are merely responding to intimidation and military threats posed by the U.S. What’s your view? Do Russia and China have imperial ambitions or are they just trying to defend themselves against what they see as an increasingly aggressive U.S. military?

Noam Chomsky (excerpt):

The US is alone in facing no credible security threats, apart from alleged threats at the borders of adversaries, who are ringed with US nuclear-armed missiles in some of the 800 US military bases around the world (China has one, Djibouti). There have been international efforts to prevent militarization of outer space, a major threat to survival. They have been initiated primarily by China and Russia, blocked for many years by Washington.

Paul Craig Roberts:

Russia and China do not claim hegemony. Only the US claims hegemony.

Abby Martin (excerpt):

It is patently absurd to think that it is Russia or China, not the US that is setting the world stage militarily. For example, when the US violated the international treaty on outer space to create Space Force, Russia reacted by announcing it would pursue its own space defense to prepare for US plans.

Dan Kovalik (excerpt):

It is undoubtedly true that Russia and China have their own ambitions for increasing power, prestige and influence in the world. However, Russia and China do so largely through means of offering development and infrastructure assistance and business relations to developing countries rather than by dropping bombs on other nations. … It is the US which is the threat to China and Russia, and not the other way around. It is the US which has troops up to the Russian frontier; Russia does not have analogous troops along the US frontier, for this would be unthinkable. It is the US which is provoking China through military maneuvers in the South China Sea; China is not doing the same off the US coasts. As is its usual wont, the US is projecting its own sins upon others (in this case, China and Russia) so as to deflect blame and soul-searching for its own crimes.

Finian Cunningham (excerpt):

The United States is the party that has unilaterally abandoned arms control treaties with Russia. The ABM in 2003, the INF treaty in 2019 and the Open Skies Treaty in 2020. Abandoning these treaties has undermined the architecture for nuclear arms controls and is inducing a new arms race. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that the scrapping of the ABM by the GW Bush administration was the factor in why his nation was compelled to develop hypersonic missiles which, the Russians have calculated, would restore strategic balance. … The US — the only nation to have used atomic weapons in war and against a civilian population — is an aggressor power owing to its imperial motives. … Russia and China have a no-first strike policy. They have declared this. The US does not. It retains the right to use nuclear weapons preemptively. It is quite clear the egg in this situation is US militarism.

Cynthia McKinney (excerpt):

The U.S. allies were not the victims of the colonial atrocities of Spain, Britain, France, Belgium, Holland. U.S. allies are the perpetrators of incalculable physical and psychological pain in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Interestingly, the friends to the colonized peoples were the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, which was divided as a result of U.S. hegemony over Taiwan and Britain’s sovereignty over Hong Kong. Neither Russia nor China, at their worst, can count the globally pervasive international crimes against humanity that are owned by the so-called West.

Question #11

We hear a lot of terms and acronyms bandied about. ‘Deep State’ … ‘MIC’ … ‘FIRE sector’ … ‘ruling elite’ … ‘oligarchy’ … ‘neocons’. Who actually defines and sets America’s geopolitical priorities and determines our foreign policy? Not “officially”. Not constitutionally. But de facto.

Noam Chomsky:

250 years ago, in the early days of modern state capitalism, an astute British analyst [Adam Smith] gave a simple answer to this question. He said that the merchants and manufacturers of England are the “masters of mankind.” They are the “principal architects” of government policy, and make sure that their own interests “are most peculiarly attended to” no matter how “grievous” the impact on others, including the people of England, but more severely the victims of “the savage injustice of the Europeans” abroad. His particular concern was the victims of England’s savage crimes in India, then in their early stages. … Nothing is that simple, of course, but Smith’s picture, modified for the modern age, is a good first approximation.

Larry Wilkerson (excerpt):

“The Deep State” as a phrase and in a modern sense was first formally used by Michael Lofgren, a longtime member of the U.S. Congressional staff with the Republican Party. Mike became one of the severest critics of his own political party after retirement in 2011 and his book, The Deep State, followed.

…

Mr. Lofgren’s article was well-read across America. He wrote about “a web of entrenched interests in the US Government and beyond (most notably Wall Street and Silicon Valley, which controls every click and swipe) that dictate America’s defense decisions, trade policies and priorities with little regard for the actual interests or desires of the American people.”

Coleen Rowley:

As retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern noted some time ago, the ruling MIC (Military Industrial Complex) is now more correctly enlarged to the MICIMATT (Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academia Think Tank) complex. Even as prescient as Eisenhower was over 60 years ago in warning how these war profiteering special interests would soon be the tail wagging the dog (i.e. whatever bit of democracy remains in the U.S.), that former president could not foresee the insatiable blood thirstiness of the monster he and his post WWII cronies had created, constantly bellowing “Feed Me!” right out of the “Little Shop of Horrors.”

Michael T. Klare:

From my experience, US foreign policy is set by what some have called the “blob” — the unelected, bipartisan, self-replicating network of senior Washington policymakers (NSC, DoD, CIA) plus the chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees; engaged former generals, admirals, and ambassadors; major defense contractor lobbyists; and key think-tank and media pundits (usually interchangeable with the other categories).

Cynthia McKinney (excerpt)

As you have probably noticed, the signature of my e-mails has a quote from a U.K. television series: “You get to the top and you realize it’s only the middle.” Tom Dawkins, UK Prime Minister in the 2012 TV series, Secret State. I watched every minute of this TV series and when this was uttered by the actor portraying the U.K. Prime Minister, I knew this was what I would call “faction.” Because that is exactly the way I felt upon realizing that Members of Congress don’t call the shots; they are mere actors [with a whole lot of squandered power that could be used to actually HELP people— including their constituents and those harmed by U.S. foreign and military policies] who trick their constituents. They are also cowards, because they could say no to these people, but they don’t dare. They are also narcissists because they think they’re smarter than their constituents and in many cases, also the donors, too. I saw some of them playing games with the so-called report cards from lobbyists, scoring 50% on them all and then collecting money from both sides on every issue!!

Joe Lombardo:

I look at this in class terms. I believe there is a ruling class that determines international policy based upon their perceived class interests, and who make the rest of us fight their wars and pay the bills. They control the two main parties and their politicians through financial control. They also control the media, the police and courts and the military. … I don’t believe that there is a “deep state” that works independently of that ruling class to determine policy.

Bruce Gagnon (excerpt):

The banksters in London and Wall Street are the essential movers and shakers of US-UK-NATO foreign policy.

The other 13 questions are as pointed as these, and the responses as direct and insightful. John Rachel has given us an exquisitely timely and readable collection of leading contemporary thought on fifteen facets of what may be the most important issue of our time: Whither US empire?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Roger Stoll.

Not only was it the first national demonstration against Joe Biden’s cruel proxy war; it was the first to be live streamed and is now archived here with all the speeches. A very 21st Century event!

The crowd in DC was estimated variously from 2000 to 5000, with sister rallies in 19 other cities. This was a remarkable achievement as the first action for a fledging. Its success is testimony to the hunger for such a broad-based movement.

And broad-based it was, another first, bringing together people from across the political spectrum to oppose the war. The lead organizations were the leftist Peoples Party and the Libertarian Party. The broad base was reflected by four former presidential candidates, well known national figures, among the many speakers: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard. No other antiwar protest in the U.S. even aspires to such inclusivity.

Without such an inclusive anti-interventionist movement, it is virtually impossible for popular forces in the U.S. to end the war in Ukraine, let alone wider wars with Russia or China. This kind of popular movement must succeed if we are to get off the road to nuclear war, WWIII. We have no other alternative as we face a threat to our very existence. It must grow if we are to survive.

The February 19 protest was the first to raise as its lead demand “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine.” This is simple, direct and captures the nature of the growing discontent over the war. Previous, smaller, local demonstrations most often called for “Peace In Ukraine,” a sentiment, not a demand, and one that can easily be co-opted by warhawks. After all, Joe Biden is for “Peace in Ukraine” – once Russia has been brought to its knees, the goal of the war as Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, and Undersecretary of State, Victoria Nuland, state openly.

“Not one more penny for war in Ukraine” is directed at the role of our government, the only one we can influence. If that demand were met, then a negotiated settlement would have to be undertaken. As the second demand of the demonstration, “Negotiate Peace,” states: “The US government instigated the war in Ukraine with a coup of its democratically elected government in 2014, and then sabotaged a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in March. Pursue an immediate ceasefire and diplomacy to end the war.”

“Not one more penny for war in Ukraine” addresses the needs of Americans whose support it was designed to develop. Most Americans feel this war in their pocketbooks, and the last thing we need is more tax dollars on top of the more than $113 billion allotted in 2022. It is a demand meant for the ears of the US government – and of the American people.

Average Americans feel the effects of this war in their daily lives. They are strapped by inflation worsened by the war; by an economy slipping into recession, by neglected disasters like the toxic spill in Palestine, Ohio; by rising national debt; by the crisis of homelessness; and by a health care system that grows ever more expensive, less comprehensive and less universal.

This demand is so eminently practical that is now embodied in a Resolution has been introduced in the House, aptly named “The Ukraine Fatigue Resolution.” It is authored by Rep. Matt Gaetz and gained 15 co-sponsors so far. It quite simply calls for the U.S. to “end its financial and military aid to Ukraine.” (A weakness of the bill is that it is only “a sense of the House,” not a law that is binding. A strength is that a vote on it would force Representatives to stand up and be counted. Most importantly, it is a beginning and shows that antiwar sentiment is growing. A binding law is the next step.)

Tellingly, Gaetz and all co-sponsors of the bill are Republicans, a rebuff to the idea that all antiwar sentiment exists only on the “left.” The desire to end this war can be universal if politics and ideology would get out of the way. The next step is for some – even one – progressive in Congress to sign onto the Gaetz bill. That way, the Congress would mirror the universalist sentiment we saw in the streets on Feb. 19.

Finally, a broad-based movement like RageAgainstWar is part of a growing international trend, as Max Blumenthal discussed here beginning at the 1hr, 37 min mark. As one example, six days after the Feb. 19 rally, Sarah Wagenknecht, member of the Bundestag (federal Parliament) and of the German Party Die Linke (The Left), and feminist activist, Alice Schwarzer, led a demonstration of tens of thousands at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. It too called for an end to military funding for Ukraine. When Wagenkenknecht was asked if members of the right wing AfD, (Alternativ fur Deutschland) were welcome, she declared they were if they opposed the war. And Schwarzer said it is time to look beyond left and right.

Schwarzer’s plea to look beyond left and right should constitute watchwords not only for Germans, but for Americans and the entire West as we face the peril of nuclear war that could easily be triggered by this cruel U.S. proxy war.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John V. Walsh.

Nearly four years after the 2016 primaries, tensions that arose within the Democratic Party during the last presidential election cycle remain largely unresolved. Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is partly to blame, as she recently opened old wounds with comments about Bernie Sanders, one of the Democrats’ current front-runners. Telling the Hollywood Reporter that “nobody likes” her former opponent, she also criticized his supporters and refused to commit to backing him were he to win the nomination. The comments led to a much-needed conversation about the Democratic Party’s direction and whether it’s possible for the progressive wing of the party, led by Sanders, to reform a party that’s largely controlled by an elitist establishment.

In the latest installment of “Scheer Intelligence,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a lifelong progressive, speaks with Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer about the conflicts tearing at the Democrats as they enter the final months in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

“I want to begin with sort of a basic question,” says Scheer. “Is this battle between Hillary and Bernie Sanders — which of course was the subject of the last Democratic primary, in 2016 — is this really the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party?”

“Well, that assumes that the Democratic Party has a soul,” responds Kucinich, who has himself run for president as a Democrat twice. “I don’t know if we could grant that. But I would say it is certainly a battle for what the Democratic Party ought to stand for.

“Bernie Sanders has been able to delineate some very progressive points of view and policies during his time as a member of the House and as a member of the Senate. His campaign would take the Democratic Party in a new direction with respect to health care and education, hopefully a new direction in foreign policy. And Hillary Clinton, you have to remember, has been a singular spokeswoman for the national security state and for war.”

To the former congressman, who served alongside many of the Democrats currently running for president, his party began to lose its direction quite a long time ago.

“At its apex, [the Democratic Party has] been, for the last 30 years, the party of plutocracy,” he asserts. Kucinich goes on to highlight policy failings that have spanned recent decades, including the Financial Services Modernization Act, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, NAFTA and perhaps most important, the bailout of banks after the 2008 financial crash, all of which left communities across the U.S. economically devastated.

“You know, I’m talking to you from Cleveland, Ohio, which was the epicenter of the subprime meltdown, where no-doc and low-doc loans were circulated primarily in African American communities and in poor white neighborhoods,” Kucinich says. “And the whole place looks like a bomb hit it, because you have neighborhoods that are just destroyed. And this was a bipartisan effort, by the way. So the Democratic Party has failed to distinguish itself since the days of, since the policies of FDR.”

Pointing to a controversial point in Kucinich’s career, Scheer asks about his decision to support President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, despite being an avid supporter of universal health care.

“I remember a moment when you had a kind of decisive vote on Obamacare, and that had to do with a public option,” says the Truthdig editor in chief. “Do you want to discuss that a little bit? Because that really goes to what the party can do when it demands loyalty.”

“Though I had many misgivings about the bill that President Obama was supporting,” Kucinich explains, “and I made it very clear it was not in any way to be confused with single-payer health care, I voted for it — not only because of my constituents but also because I saw it as holding a space, at least, for health care reform on a much larger scale, for the reform that I continue to push for, which is single-payer, not-for-profit.

“But look, I never had any illusions about what was going to happen once that passed, and that the insurance companies would cash in, and that the pharmaceutical companies would continue to cash in, as they had under [George W.] Bush.”

“I think health care ought to be a defining issue in this election,” Kucinich concludes. Despite his progressive credentials, however, the Democrat seems to agree with Noam Chomsky’s statement in a recent episode of “Scheer Intelligence” regarding the 2020 election and the lesser of two evils.

Listen to the full discussion between Scheer and Kucinich as the former congressman offers an insider’s view of the Democratic Party he’s worked in for much of life. You can also read a transcript of the interview below the media player and find past episodes of “Scheer Intelligence” here.

—Introduction by Natasha Hakimi Zapata

RS: Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence, where the intelligence comes from my guests. In this case an old friend, Dennis Kucinich, I’m sure well-known to people listening to this program. I first met Dennis when he was the mayor of Cleveland and called out the big financial interests and had big battles over the rights of people to control their resources, very early on in the environmental movement. And I’ve known him through a career on City Council and, obviously, in the U.S. Congress and as a congressional candidate. I believe, Dennis, it’s been about 40 years, has it not? When were you mayor?

DK: Well, we have known each other for, to be exact, 41 years.

RS: Oh, OK. [Laughs] So the reason I tracked down Dennis today is because it’s the day on which I read a story from The Hollywood Reporter — carried elsewhere, and there’s a documentary also connected with it — in which Hillary Clinton takes down Bernie Sanders. And she takes him down, she says that he had no friends in Congress, he could get nothing done, no one liked him. And then she did [what] I thought was the unpardonable thing — in, you know, given the Democratic Party and the loyalty and everything–she didn’t even indicate whether she would support Bernie Sanders. She hesitated, and would not say that she would support him if he is the Democratic candidate. And I just thought, there’s one person that would be able to help me understand this situation, and that would be Dennis Kucinich, who knew both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Congress. And I want to begin with sort of a basic question: is this battle between Hillary and Bernie Sanders — which of course was the subject of the last Democratic primary, in 2016 — is this really the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party?

DK: Well, that assumes that the Democratic Party has a soul. I don’t know if we could grant that. But I would say it is certainly a battle for what the Democratic Party ought to stand for. Bernie Sanders has been able to delineate some very progressive points of view and policies during his time as a member of the House and as a member of the Senate. His campaign has — it would take the Democratic Party in a new direction with respect to health care and education, hopefully a new direction in foreign policy. And Hillary Clinton, you have to remember, has been a singular spokeswoman for the national security state and for war. She was on board for regime-change wars in Iraq and Libya, and in Syria. Ukraine — as her assistant Victoria Nuland said, “Yats is the guy;” they wanted to throw out the leader of Ukraine at that point. And finally, Bob, the response of the Clinton campaign to the 2016 election results brought Russia into a whole new role as, allegedly, the agent provocateur of the 2016 election, and blamed — the Clinton campaign blamed Russia for the defeat. So what you have when you look at Hillary Clinton, you have her as being central to the activities of the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon over a period of time, that puts her really as being the singular figure in democratic politics today who stands for interventionism, regime change and the primacy of the American military-industrial complex. And so Bernie — and Bernie Sanders does not stand for that.

RS: So let me — that’s right, but let me take it away from that a bit. Because when I talked about the, mentioned the soul of the Democratic Party — and it’s a party that’s had great contradictions. You know, after all, it was also the party of Southern racist Dixiecrats who defended segregation and, you know, opposed the progress of people of color in this world. And so I know all the failings. But when I think of the soul of the Democratic Party, at the very least, it should be the party of working people, of poor people, of dispossessed people. And I think of the tradition of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And I think of that set of issues, which now, at the time of billionaire power — you have the Oxfam report, where 2,200 billionaires have as much wealth as 4.3 billion people in this world. We’ve had very sharp class division within the United States since Bill Clinton was president. And what I really had in mind was elitism and plutocracy, and that what Bernie Sanders clearly stands for is the concern of the average person, the working person. And Hillary Clinton seems to embody the elitism, going back to her husband’s administration, where it’s the opening to Wall Street, to financial deregulation — that’s really what I meant. Is this the party of the billionaire class, or is it the party of the working class?

DK: Well you know, since you frame it that way, you’ve drawn, I think, and delineated very sharply, the differences between Hillary Clinton’s view of the political economy and the role of the Democratic Party, and Bernie Sanders’. If the party, if the Democratic Party had a soul, when it started to take corporate contributions from the same interests the republicans were taking contributions from about 30 years ago, that soul was put on auction. The fact is that you cannot separate foreign policy, which has resulted in the transfer of trillions of dollars of wealth out of this country, and for destructive purposes, but also to — you know, defense contractors have cashed in handsomely — that’s part of the equation, and it needs to be part of every discussion when you’re talking about domestic priorities. Because you cannot talk about health care for all while you’re spending trillions abroad on war; you cannot talk about free education for all when you’re spending trillions abroad for war. And so I think, generally speaking — it’s not true in every regard, but generally speaking, there is a sharp contrast with what Hillary has traditionally stood for and what Bernie Sanders stands for.

And I think you have to give some credit to another candidate in this race who has taken a strong position against interventionism, and that’s Tulsi Gabbard, who also — to the ire of Hillary Clinton, when Hillary smeared her as a Russian asset, Hillary’s campaign having tidily built the case, falsely built the case about Russia manipulating the 2016 election against Hillary. And then later on, having built that sand Kremlin, goes ahead and accuses Tulsi Gabbard of being part of it. And this all happens in the last month, which raises questions as to whether or not Secretary Clinton’s experience in the 2016 election was so traumatic that it’s made her — it’s caused her to lose her perspective.

RS: Well, let me push on this question of the soul. Because I think at least — or if not the soul, the mythology of the party is that it’s the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And I’m talking to Dennis Kucinich, who started life living in a car, right? With a bunch of brothers and sisters.

DK: Well, my — you know, that was one of the places that my parents and our family lived, out of 21.

RS: Yeah. So you come from — you come from the hard-knocks school of American life. And as mayor and as a congressman, I think you have an impeccable record of showing a concern for the victims of rampant monopoly capitalism. And so what I’m trying to get at here is because I understand the Democratic Party has often been a warmongering party. I mean Lyndon Johnson, you know, gave us the Vietnam War, and we can go right down the line. But you would have thought–and given the appeal to minority voters, given the language of the party, and you’ve been at these conventions and so forth — you would think that this issue of economic justice and fairness would be critical. And I do think, I mean, whenever–and we’ll get to the personal in a minute. And as I said, you were in Congress, you were in the House of Representatives with Bernie Sanders; you were in Congress where Hillary Clinton was a senator from New York. You’ve watched, you know something about — a great deal about the legislative process.

But what I think is so odd here is that the issue that is drawn between these two is really the plutocrat versus the common interest. And in the case of Hillary Clinton, I admire her chutzpah in a sense, because here’s somebody whose husband released Wall Street greed, enabled it, overturned the basic legislation that came out of the New Deal controlling Wall Street, that gave us the Great Depression. And because of that legislation — the Financial Services Modernization Act, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act–we had the Great Recession. And I use the word chutzpah — or arrogance, if you like a more Anglo term — and here is Bernie Sanders she’s denouncing, who has actually made these issues of economic fairness, and the concerns of the average person, front and center to the political debate. And she’s now taking that away from him. I don’t get it, frankly.

DK: But she’s not the one to take that away. Because since that was not the ground that she worked during her career as a senator, and certainly during her career as a secretary of state.

RS: Well, let me combine the two, because — let me, I’m sorry, I won’t interrupt after this. But there is a real connection here, because you brought up the Russian interference and so forth, OK? And the great crime of Russian interference is supposed to be, you know, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, who is rotting in jail. You know, so there’s bipartisan support for destroying whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and publishers like Julian Assange, who dare print their work. But the big crime of Russian interference is not manipulating technical detail out on the internet. It was two specific things: it was getting the documents on how the Democratic — this is the alleged thing, that the Podesta files showing how the Democratic National Committee had sided with Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. And more important, really, revealing what it was that Hillary Clinton said in those speeches, for which she got three quarters of a million dollars, to Goldman Sachs. And what she said in those speeches was that she was going to bring these financial geniuses from Wall Street with her to Washington to straighten out the economy. And that was explosive, because these are the people who messed up the economy. So it does get back to this basic issue of: is this the party of plutocracy, or is this the party of working people?

DK: At its apex it’s been, for the last 30 years, the party of plutocracy. With the — you cited the Financial Services Modernization Act, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act — you also have to look at the trade deals, NAFTA and the Democrats who went along with trying to trade. We have sold out working-class people in this country. And we — and Obama came in and basically blessed the bailout of Wall Street while millions of Americans lost their homes. And that was well known it was going to happen, because Tim Geithner came to a caucus of Democrats and said, “Yeah, we’re going to straighten this out, but millions of people are going to lose their homes.” Not that “We will save millions of people’s homes,” but “They’re going to lose their homes.”

And you know, I’m talking to you from Cleveland, Ohio, which was the epicenter of the subprime meltdown, where no-doc and low-doc loans were circulated primarily in African American communities and in poor white neighborhoods. And the whole place looks like a bomb hit it, because you have neighborhoods that are just destroyed. And this was a bipartisan effort, by the way. So the Democratic Party has failed to distinguish itself since the days of, since the policies of FDR. Kennedy didn’t have enough time to do something, and Johnson got tied up in the war. Johnson had the Great Society; there were some good things that he tried to do. But the archetypal role of a political party — as was described in the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt starting with the ’32 election, and then put into place in ’33 and on — all that has melted away like some insubstantial pageant faded, leaving less than a rack behind.

And you would think that the Democrats would rally under a platform that would say “health care for all.” In the year 2000, I went to the Democratic Convention platform committee in Cleveland, where I was there with Laila Garrett from Southern California, Tom Hayden, Gloria Allred and myself. And we pushed for a universal health care program, and I was told by the Gore campaign, don’t do this, because you know, this — we’re not going in this direction. And we know that Democrats as well as Republicans have sold the American people’s health interests out. So you know, we now are at a divide. And this 2020 election will show us whether or not a political party is capable of bringing about the kind of economic and political reforms which are so needed in this country right now to raise up the standard of living for people, to raise wages, to raise — to give everyone access to quality healthcare, to give everyone access to a quality education. We’re going to find out if that Democratic Party, once the nominee is known, if the Democratic Party actually has it in them, or if we’re in for another same old, same old. But the American people are getting impatient, and they’re not going to continue to be slow-walked into an economic hardship while the titans of the party line their pockets.

RS: Well, but you know, Dennis — and for people who don’t know the full history of your political journey, you’ve been fighting this battle for your whole life. And when I went and I interviewed you for both the L.A. Times and for Playboy magazine, when you were mayor of Cleveland — and there you have all the ingredients that are at stake now. You were in favor of public power and the wise use of power; you were against the big-power interests, you were against the big banks that were in bed with them. You were trying to protect a public interest in how we use utilities, how we use energy. You were very early to the conservation and environmental concerns, and attacking the waste society and talking about economic justice. And as was pointed out in a recent terrific interview with you at Rolling Stone magazine, you are the guy who was way ahead of your time. And you were a Democrat; they can’t say, hey, he’s like Bernie Sanders, was an independent — you’re a Democrat, you’ve been a loyal Democrat. And in fact, I think it’s fair to say you lost your congressional seat, not because voters rejected you in your old district; they supported you — but you were gerrymandered out in a deal that the Democratic Party brokered.

DK: By the Democrats, right. That’s exactly right. The Democratic Party was responsible for a redistricting that eliminated a congressional district in Cleveland, which I held. Now, think about that. Why? Because I’m not the guy who was here for the plutocrats. I’m, you know, I understand that the shift of wealth that’s been going on — think about this, Bob. The U.S. government admits it’s spent at least $80,000 per average family of four since 2001 on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That’s, like, over $6.4 trillion. And then the actual figure is much higher; it’s closer, I think, closer to $150,000 per family, for just our regime-change wars in those two countries. And you know Chris Hedges; well, I’ve read some of his stuff. He’s pointed out that our society is going to crumble, lives will be lost, disease and despair will rise to keep the Empire afloat and the world in fear if we keep these wars going on. So we’ve got — what we’re experiencing now is the cost of a plutocratic approach blessed by both political parties, which accelerates wealth to the top, and an economic pyramid, top of the economic pyramid. And it’ll be catastrophic for our economy and our democracy unless we reverse it.

RS: OK, but I want to get it back to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Because I do think that this is a clarifying, a decisive moment that cuts through a lot of illusions. Because, yes, Donald Trump is a center of evil disruption and cynicism and what have you. But the problem is that he is effective in harnessing anger and fear and concern out there of decent, ordinary people who feel betrayed by the economy. And then he talks a tough game on trade, and maybe even on NAFTA; he might have improved NAFTA, there are some better things in the new trade agreement than were there before. But the fact is, we have right-wing populism not just here, but throughout the world. We have right-wing populism. And populism is important not because populism is a bad thing, but because people have real concerns that are not being addressed by their establishment of these different societies. Now, what happened in the ’16 election, the democrats had a populist candidate in Bernie Sanders who could have had the debate with Donald Trump that this country has to have. And instead you got Hillary Clinton, got the nomination with a lot of Wall Street establishment support, and that debate didn’t happen. We had a populism of the right, and we had a plutocracy and an establishment view from the Democrats.

DK: I would agree with that.

RS: Well, I’m wondering now — now, here is Hillary Clinton, who says she would not — she would not commit to supporting Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump. Noam Chomsky, in my last podcast, he says he’s going to go for the lesser evil, you got to stop Trump. Hillary Clinton wasn’t willing to take that position, right, with The Hollywood Reporter or in that documentary that’s going to be shown. She hesitated; she would not back Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump. So for all the talk about party loyalty, the need to stop Trump, where she evidently draws the line is a serious progressive populist who wants to take on the banks.

DK: Yeah, I would say that that says more about Secretary Clinton than it does about Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders has very clearly laid out a program for economic reform. He has talked about it almost to the exclusion of foreign policy, I might add, but nevertheless he has laid out a platform that — look, essentially, on the economic side, I agree with him. You know, I actually wrote the bill in I think it was 2007, for universal single-payer, not-for-profit health care, H.R. 676. And Bernie and I worked together on that, as we worked together to try to avert war in Iraq. And so you know, I — and I’ve known him, you know, full disclosure, I’ve known him since 1979, when he was the mayor of Burlington. I’ve known Secretary Clinton since the time that she was the first lady of Arkansas. You know, and there’s a lot to be said about her earlier career, and particularly in the areas of education and children’s care. But I think that something has happened in her ascent, which caused her to basically throw in her lot with the interest groups who control the country for their own benefit, and not for the benefit of the American people.

RS: Well, this is not new. After all, we had welfare reform. I mean, I’m assuming Hillary Clinton supported Bill Clinton; she was an active member of his administration. She was working on healthcare, and you had these programs — the imprisonment of a large number of people, the crime bill; you had the welfare reform, which basically ended the poverty program, the national poverty program, social welfare program. You had many of these things that happened, so it’s not just recently. But what I wanted to ask you about in particular, since you keep bringing up health care, I remember a moment when you had a kind of decisive vote on Obamacare, and that had to do with a public option. Do you want to discuss that a little bit? Because that really goes to what the party can do when it demands loyalty.

DK: I was part of about five meetings that took place with President Obama with increasingly smaller groups of people, until finally I had a chance to talk to him on Air Force One on a flight from Washington to Cleveland. And what was astonishing to me is that President Obama was prepared to take the entire health care bill down unless it went through without any changes whatsoever. I pushed for a public option, had 75 Democrats agree, and I was the last man left standing, along with a member of Congress from New York. And basically, the moment of decision came, where I had to decide based on the pleas of my constituents, who were adamant about having a healthcare plan which treated pre-existing conditions, which took care of children who lived at home, age 25 and under. And though I had many misgivings about the bill that President Obama was supporting, and I made it very clear it was not in any way to be confused with single-payer healthcare, I voted for it — not only because of my constituents, please, but also because I saw it as holding a space, at least, for healthcare reform on a much larger scale, for the reform that I continue to push for, which is single-payer, not-for-profit. But look, I never had any illusions about what was going to happen once that passed, and that the insurance companies would cash in, and that the pharmaceutical companies would continue to cash in, as they had under Bush.

So, you know, health care, again, we’re led to believe that Obamacare, as it’s termed, is the sine qua non of health care, and we can’t do any better. And that’s baloney. We can and should have a single-payer, not-for-profit system. People — you know, Bernie Sanders was trapped initially on the discussions about, well, you know, you’re going to take away people’s health care that they get from their jobs. But the basic question is, if you’re paying over $15,000 to $20,000 a year on your present health insurance policies for your family, and you can get the same coverage for a fraction of that, what would you take? That’s really the question that needs to be posed to the American people. And I think health care ought to be a defining issue. In this election, it ought to be a defining issue.

RS: But let me — the reason I’m pushing this is because Hillary Clinton, in her attack on Bernie Sanders, raised the question of effectiveness. She said Bernie Sanders had no friends, had no support in Congress and couldn’t get anything done. And then there’s two questions. One, of course, is what are you getting done? If you’re getting support for wars that make no sense, then you don’t want that kind of effectiveness. If you’re getting support for programs like increasing the prison population or deregulating Wall Street, then that’s negative. And so you’re a person of great experience within the belly of the beast, if you like. You’ve been there. You’ve been in the negotiations, you’ve been on the committees, you’ve worked through Congress. What do you make of her attack on Bernie Sanders as someone who is just, you know, had no positive impact at all?

DK: Well, you know, first of all, if the measure of effectiveness is being an interventionist and using the resources of the United States to push for regime change which resulted in the deaths of over a million innocent people in the last two decades — then, you know, Hillary Clinton’s very effective. But if you talk about effectiveness in terms of a real commitment to people who are trying to survive, who are concerned about what they pay for health care, who are concerned about access to healthcare, who are concerned about their children being able to afford school — you know, that’s a measure of effectiveness. You know, the average — think about this, Bob — the average American family of four pays about $30,000 a year for health care, and $15,000 a year for keeping our 800 bases open around the world. I mean, what are our priorities? So effectiveness, in Secretary Clinton’s view, is a statement that her priorities are firmly aligned with a political establishment which is denying the practical aspirations of hundreds of millions of Americans while an elite profits from the activities of established figures inside the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA and all the groups that surround them in the various foundations.

RS: But let me — I mean, just you know, because people — we don’t know, most people don’t know how the sausage is made. And so they get very impressed when people like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton say they get things done. After all, Joe Biden’s still the front-runner for the Democratic Party, and that’s going to be his claim. And then — so then, but how is the sausage made? And is it good for us? Is it good for us?

DK: Well, Bob — Bob, it’s a good question to put to me. Because I know how the sausage is made, and that’s why I’m a vegan. I’m a non-interventionist, because I know wars are based on lies. I believe in peace, not coercive diplomacy that Secretary Clinton has championed, but strength through peace, peace as the primary purpose of the instruments of government. The country has a right to defend itself, but we’ve seen that twisted and used over and over and over. So when we talk about the diet of the nation, the people are getting skinny while certain cats are getting fat. And we need to change the priorities of the country, to realign them with the sensibilities and the spirit of FDR and that New Deal. And to come forward with a restoration of the American polity, to make sure people have decent roofs over their heads, and a place for their children to go to school in a safe neighborhood, and never have to worry about losing what they’ve worked a lifetime for because somebody in the family gets ill, and a secure retirement. And I mean, all those things ought to be birth rights to every American, but they are certainly not today. And frankly, that is not just because of a Republican Party — no way. It’s also because a Democratic Party has failed to provide true choices for the American people. And it remains to be seen whether in 2020 the Democratic Party will provide such choices. And finally, if it doesn’t, Bob, I think that 2024 we’ll see a realignment in American politics, where people will be fed up with both political parties, and they will truly be ready to look at something different that aligns more closely with their aspirations.

RS: But I want to go back to the sausage, and I appreciate that you’re a vegan, but you’ve been involved with the sausage-making of legislation. You’ve been on committees, you’ve been in the debates. And you know, most of us who are sympathetic to your progressive outlook haven’t been there. You know, I watched you in Congress; I witnessed it. I interviewed people in different legislative — I remember the Financial Services Modernization Act, which is what repealed Glass-Steagall and freed Wall Street, you know, to run wild. And I remember Barney Frank was pushing that; he was head of the banking committee, and he was supposedly a good progressive. I remember even members of the Black Caucus supported it. And the fact of the matter is, as a result of the Great Recession, which was ushered in by that legislation, black people in America lost 70% of their wealth; brown people lost 60% of their wealth. So I’m interested in the sausage-making, and I got you here, because you’ve been the witness to it, and you’ve been a well-intentioned person. And yet, you know what the lobbyists do; you know — I remember Barney Frank telling me, oh, it’s complicated, go talk to so-and-so. And so-and-so turned out to be a lobbyist. You know, but he’s a good guy, you know. And that’s what we need to know. Is this whole thing about to be — Bernie Sanders is not effective because he was an outsider. You know? Well, what did the insiders do? Democrat and Republican?

DK: Let me give you a story that can help put it in perspective. When I first came to Congress, I was escorted around the Capitol grounds by an old friend and somebody who had served the Cleveland seat that I took, ended up taking. And that was former Congressman Jim Stanton. And Jim took me around the campus, and we were between the Longworth and the Rayburn buildings, and he pointed to another member of Congress across the street. And he said, you see that guy there? I said yeah. He said, that guy thinks this place — he extended his hands to the whole of the campus — that guy thinks this place is on the level.

So you know, Washington has the pretense of serving the masses of American people. But in fact, it’s a machine that works for interest groups. And if the people are able to get some crumbs, well, that’s a surprise. And you know, we have a — I think it was [name unclear] who said that we have a winner-take-all society, with more and more being left behind. So you know, this is not the greatest economy ever; it’s a crumbling society where families sink deeper into debt, where most Americans have no wealth, where they function as indentured servants. Are we going to change that? Well, that ought to be the purpose of our politics. I’ve just been notified by the studio that we have all of — well, we just have a few minutes left here. So I just —

RS: So take the few minutes, Dennis. Is it better — let’s take even her characterization. Is it better to be a provocative truth-teller about the concentration of wealth and power in America, like Bernie Sanders? Or is it better to be an insider like Hillary Clinton, who works with the most powerful, and yet claims that she’s on the progressive side? Which path, if you had to choose between the two, do you think is more useful to the American public?

DK: Well, I mean, that’s easy —

RS: Well, it’s not easy, because the —

DK: Well, it is. Because it’s not — the way that you structure it, it’s an easy answer. But let me just say this, that you can actually understand how the system works, and make sure that the mass of the American people are, their interests are served. I mean, that’s what the New Deal was all about. We haven’t had the kind of organization of government power on behalf of the American people since then. And that’s what we need. We need a restructuring of our political economy, and a restructuring of our government, so we can focus on using the power and the leverage of government on behalf of all the people of the United States, not on just behalf of a 1%.

RS: But that’s what we’ve been saying for all this time. I mean, since Roosevelt was president. And the fact of the matter is, and particularly since the Reagan-Clinton years — that’s where it really started — we’ve had the most extreme redistribution of income back to the rich that we had since the roaring ’20s.

DK: Well, what’s going on is that the political system has been structured to continue that. That’s what Buckley v. Valeo was about; that’s what Citizens United’s about. They legalized the purchase of government. And, you know, he who pays the piper calls the tune. And I’ve just been told I have one minute for this tune.

RS: [Laughs] OK, Dennis, and you’re back there in Cleveland, I hope you’re going to consider a political future — or not, I don’t know, ah —

DK: Well, I’m actually thinking of a career in politics, but I, you know, I’m just mulling it over.

RS: Oh, OK. [Laughs]

DK: But listen, Bob, I appreciate being on. And, you know, people — we’re ginning up our website again at Kucinich.com, people can follow me on Facebook and a few other places. But I’m getting back in the mix. I took some time away, but let me tell you, I’m going to be involved in support of a candidate in the general election. Hopefully it’ll, you know, it’ll be someone who aligns with my values. And right now in the primary, I just came back from New Hampshire, where I was working for an unheralded non-interventionist by the name of Tulsi Gabbard.

RS: OK. Well, that’s a good promo. But would you have trouble supporting either or any of these candidates? I mean, Hillary Clinton hesitated to say whether she would support Bernie Sanders. I know you —

DK: I’m going to help the Democratic Party make whoever the candidate is the best candidate that can be, let’s say that. And that candidate, then, hopefully, will be able to serve the public. I’ve always been involved in the election, whether I agreed with who was getting the nomination or not.

RS: So you would support even a Biden.

DK: Yeah. Look, I’ve known Joe Biden since ’72. I don’t have any problem with Joe Biden except, you know, his foreign policy.

RS: Oh, OK. [Laughs] All right. And he did support the deregulation of Wall Street, and ah —

DK: I know what Joe — listen, I’ve known Biden since ’72. I like Joe Biden. If he gets the nomination, I’ll be happy to help him out and give him some advice on foreign policy.

RS: Oh, OK. So there’s a — Dennis Kucinich will support Joe Biden. Hillary Clinton couldn’t commit to supporting Bernie Sanders. Maybe that’s the tale of the party and how people line up. But thanks again, Dennis, it’s a pleasure having you here, and take care. And that’s it for this edition of Scheer Intelligence. Our producer here at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism has been Sebastian Grubaugh. Joshua Scheer is the overall producer of Scheer Intelligence, and truth be told, he actually worked in Dennis Kucinich’s office once as a young staff person. Christopher Ho at KCRW gets these things up on their site, which has been our host. And see you next week with another edition of Scheer Intelligence.