If he wasn't such a blithering idiot, Donald Trump wouldn't stop with the shock announcement that he is withdrawing US troops from northeast Syria, leaving the Kurd fighters to their fate of possible extermination by the Turkish dictator. He wouldn't stop with simply borrowing Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard's antiwar rhetoric to justify his rash decision:
“The Kurds fought with us, but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to do so. They have been fighting Turkey for decades. I held off this fight for almost 3 years, but it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.”
If he really wanted to wreak revenge on the Democratic Party/CIA Partnership which is seeking his ouster, he would go far beyond embracing all the insanity ascribed to him and begin to attack his enemies from the left. He might go into full bonkers mode and even start talking up Medicare For All. He'd advance from channeling Tulsi to channeling Bernie Sanders.
Not that he would really mean it, of course. His idea of single payer health care would be probably be Medicare For All Whites Who Are Rich Enough To Pay For It. He rarely means anything he says, anyway. Even his Syria troop withdrawal is, at the moment, just the latest in a long series of whimsical threats and diversionary tactics to get the neocons and the liberal hawks riled up as he simply adjusts the territory and the bombing. But channeling Tulsi in his tweets no doubt appeals to his base in those areas of the country which have seen a disproportionate number of their sons and daughters killed and maimed in the forever wars, and whose voters therefore picked Trump over the hawkish Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The Syria troop withdrawal is also a way for Trump to deflect attention from his impeachment and Ukraine-gate woes, to give his opponents a new reason to hate him while also gaining him some support from what is still left of the peace movement - which, incidentally, rightly criticizes Barack Obama's own role in creating ISIS by arming Syrian terrorist groups. As reported by AntiWar.Com:
The Syrian Civil War is one of the worst tragedies of the 21st century. Over 500,000 people have been killed. The Obama administration knowingly armed Al Qaeda affiliated opposition groups at the beginning of the war. A declassified document from the Department of Defense dated August 12th 2012 said, "The Salafist, The Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The document also said, "AQI supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media."
Continuing the war in Syria has become a bipartisan effort. Any politicians who make efforts to end our involvement in the war come under enormous criticism. Congresswoman and 2020 presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard took a trip to Syria in 2017 and had an unexpected meeting with Assad. Now whenever faced by liberals who don’t like her, Gabbard gets called an "Assad Apologist" no matter what the issue is. Even after the most recent debates when Gabbard went after Senator Kamala Harris over her record as a prosecutor, Harris responded in an interview after and said, "I think that this coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad…I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously."
There is no way, meanwhile, fake peacenick or not, that Trump would ever reverse his xenophobic immigration policies. As a matter of fact, his fascistic administration has just issued a new directive requiring all immigrants to either have private health coverage or prove their independent financial wherewithal to pay for their care out-of-pocket. I guess that lets out the Kurds, whom Trump is leaving high and dry at the Syria-Turkey border, from ever entering the US as refugees.
Still, if Trump could only begin to nudge his autocratic mindset just a wee bit more in the Huey Long direction instead of simply doubling and tripling down on the tyrannical regression, his approval ratings might just start to pick back up.
Because seeing as how his bowing to elite pressure and intensifying economic sanctions against his alleged puppet-master in Russia and then even scrapping the Reagan-Gorbachev nuclear arms accord did not in the least placate the Cold War 2.0 warriors who want to see him gone, what more does Trump have to lose at this point?
Many Trump voters already support Medicare For All. These are among the same voters who have been successfully indoctrinated by the ruling elites into scapegoating immigrants as the enemies who are stealing all those jobs. As much as they claim to hate "socialism" and Big Government, Trump voters live in the reality-based world in which you can still go bankrupt even if you're insured. You can still lose your health care if your job disappears or if your employer decides he can no longer afford to pay the premiums. Regardless of political ideology, people in ever greater numbers are struggling to pay the bills.
So if he wasn't such a very stable moron, Trump would move to the left, at least rhetorically. It certainly worked to his advantage during the GOP primaries, when everybody applauded his hilariously insulting take-downs of anointed front-runner Jeb Bush, forced to defend his brother George's illegal invasion and occupation and destruction of Iraq.
The liberal interventionists now raising such a ruckus over his latest threat to end a war are the very same elites who, while giving Trump even more Pentagon funding than he asked for, vow to defend the predatory Affordable Care Act to the death. Think of their anguish if Trump starts gaslighting them and opposing the ACA by calling for its replacement with a true single payer system akin to the coverage enjoyed by service members and veterans and Congress. The centrists would themselves go nuts if forced to futilely do battle against such a multi-pronged daily onslaught of craziness. It would be a real hoot to watch as the US Imperium collapses around the whole sorry lot of them, in any case.
So who knows? If any more of his GOP cohort start throwing him under the bus regarding Ukraine-gate and his Syria policy, Trump could always spitefully quit the party in a huff and become an Independent, if not the registered Democrat that he was for most of his life.
There may come a point where Trump has nothing left to lose.
Now that Trump is so embattled from all sides, perhaps now would be a good time for Bernie Sanders to renew the "M4A" challenge he issued to the president two years ago:
“Ideally, where we should be going is to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people as a right,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “That’s why I’m going to introduce a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program.”
Sanders said he would reach out to President Donald Trump and urge him to back this and other effective measures to improve health-care coverage, starting with pending legislation of limiting drug prices.
“President Trump, come on board,” Sanders said on CNN. “Let’s work together. Let’s end the absurdity of Americans paying by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.”
Support for such a “socialist” intervention seems to be growing. The Pew Research Center found in January that 60% of Americans surveyed believe the government should be responsible for ensuring health coverage for all.
That was two years ago. Support for single payer across the political spectrum is now at least 70 percent, despite the best propaganda efforts of the corporate-sponsored news media and the health insurance lobby. They emphasize the tax increase bogeyman without informing the audience that any increased taxes for M4A would still be about half what people are now paying in premiums and deductibles.
In other words, say as a hypothetical that you currently pay $20,000 (including the premium, a high annual deductible and co-pays) for a private insurance policy. That expenditure would stop. You might end up paying $10,000 in additional taxes depending upon your bracket and deductions, but that still leaves you in possession of the $10,000 previously sucked up by Blue Cross or United Health. This extra ten grand will not only make your life better, it will help the economy at large. No more shopping around on an online insurance marketplace every single year. No more worries about your employer dropping your coverage.
The powers-that-be don't particularly want your lives to be better. That would be an insult to capitalism itself, whose ultimate aim is to sicken all but the very rich.
Unstable and malignant system that it is, capitalism will eventually kill even the oligarchs, some of whom seem to think they can escape to Outer Space one day to save themselves.
Trump is certainly not the only moron in the mix.
Pundit Paul Krugman, who used much of his 2016 New York Times column space to sneer at Bernie Sanders and even pettily punch down on his supporters, has conveniently pivoted back to concern-trolling progressive mode just in time for the 2018 midterms.
He now directs his ire at what he calls "The Big Sneer"- other pundits (whom he doesn't bother naming) who are allegedly complaining that Democrats (also unnamed) running for office don't have enough "new ideas." This is both sexist and silly, according to Krugman.
After a whole Democratic primary campaign season spent sneering at single payer health care and debt-free higher education as "pie-in-the-sky" utopian pipe dreams, Krugman complains that it's not fair for somebody like Paul Ryan to be lauded by the media, while the righteous Democrats are chronically sneered upon for being so dull and dreary:
I’m not saying that politicians shouldn’t be open to new thinking and evidence about policy. But a political party isn’t like Apple, which needs to keep coming up with glitzier products to stay ahead of Android. There are huge problems with U.S. policy on many fronts, but very few of these problems come from lack of good new ideas. They come, instead, from failure to act on what we already know – and, for the most part, have known for a long time.
Since Krugman has never been one to sneer at himself, he does not name himself as the most prominent expert who took the good idea of Medicare For All and sneered all over it in his quest to ensure that Bernie would never beat Hillary in the rigged Democratic Party primaries.
Now, to be fair to Krugman, he doesn't actually go so far as to belatedly espouse Medicare For All, which he dutifully sneered at as "a distraction" when Hillary came out against it on the campaign trail. Rather, he now carefully opines that "access" to universal health care is a good idea, with only a non-progressive president and Congress standing in its way. He doesn't mention that even the uninsured and underinsured already have ways to "access" their local emergency rooms - by taking an ambulance, an Uber, or even crawling there on their hands and knees if they have to, to display that all-American grit, determination, resilience and entrepreneurship.
"Access" is not the same thing as actual care. "Access" isn't getting health care without the fear of going bankrupt and getting even sicker from the relentless worry about how the heck you're ever going to pay the mortgage or rent on top of that mountain of medical bills.
And, to be even fairer to Krugman, he isn't actually calling for an end to the endless obfuscatory delay-tactic discussions of how "we" are ever going to pay for all the good ideas that have been floating around since at least the time of FDR. "Details" do still matter, especially when they're thrashed about in think tanks and universities by credentialed experts. Because despite his claim that Democrats shouldn't be constantly hounded to come up with "new ideas," one never knows what new ideas will burst forth while pounding into dust the details of the good ideas in the think tanks.
And thus does Krugman effectively destroy his own argument for "keeping it simple, stupid!" Meanwhile, though, there still has to be a sneering Strawman upon which to divert all our sneers:
So why the demand for new ideas? Partly it’s because pundits are bored with conventional policy discussion – and/or don’t want to be bothered learning enough to understand actually existing policy issues, preferring sparkly new stuff they can praise simply for its newness. Partly it’s just an excuse for sneering at Democrats, which as I understand it is required by the pundit code.
In case you were wondering why Krugman's historic and relentless and punditory sneering at Bernie and his supporters doesn't actually count as sneering, repeat after me: Bernie Is Not a Democrat, Bernie Is Not a Democrat, Bernie Is Not a Democrat. So of course he doesn't really count as either a sincere human being or a politician -- and neither should you, if you're a lefty or an independent.
Since Krugman doesn't bother delving into who actually finances this "pundit code," I mentioned it in my published comment:
When media pundits urge Democratic politicians to "go big, go bold and go new," what they're really prescribing is more austerity for the masses and more riches for the billionaires and corporations who keep them on the air and in print.
This embrace of plutocratic values - "ending welfare as we know it," the deregulation of Big Finance and the telecoms, the offshoring of jobs and manufacturing via "free" trade deals, and the "tough on crime" policies resulting in mass incarceration - is how the "New Democrats" first grabbed power in the 90s. Despite the aftershocks of these neoliberal policies and the loss of a thousand legislative seats in the past decade alone, the party elders and their media stenographers want more of the same. This championship of the status quo is actually their perverted definition of "new."
It doesn't help their message that the most famous New Democrats are now hitting their 70s and 80s. The pundits and the oligarchic donor class running this show are desperate for younger, more charismatic "rising stars" to sell us the same old "Incrementalism You Can Believe In."
Of course Medicare for All is a great idea, and would be much more cost-effective than our current privatized system. But they don't want to admit this because ordinary people having too many nice things might give Mr. Market a nervous breakdown.
Until we force finance capital and the government to get a divorce, and overturn Citizens United, nothing is going to change.
Although establishment Democrats say they're dipping their toes into the populist waters, they're not ready to take the plunge quite yet. It is simply too early to campaign on such policies as Medicare for All or enhanced Social Security.
After all, it's not the day-to-day pressing problems of their constituents that concern them. It's the optimal timing of their populist message to give them the best chance of winning more power for themselves in the 2018 midterm elections. If they demand too much for us too soon, their own personal chances might be damaged.
So right now, these affluent politicians are perfectly content to stand by and watch the Trump administration destroy itself, and by extension, the country and the entire world. Senate Majority Leader and career pol Chuck Schumer (D-Wall Street) blithely told Politico that there will be plenty of time to "hammer on" Democratic proposals next year. The fierce urgency of now simply does not apply within the smug Clinton/Obama wing of the party.
As the GOP suffers self-inflicted wounds on health care and
Trump gets bogged down by an FBI probe of his ties to Russia, many in
the party believe they should not risk getting in the way, at least not
for now.
“It’s less important what our national message is right now,
given that Donald Trump is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room,”
moderate Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) told POLITICO.
“Quite frankly, the less we have to say about it, the better.”
Translation: let the oxygen-deprived masses eat Russian teacake as politicians feverishly fund-raise off all the fear they are instigating. Who needs to be socially or economically proactive at a time like this? Certainly not the oligarchs who profit every time there is a manufactured crisis. There's plenty of time for the next periodic onslaught of bullshit and empty campaign promises.
The task ahead for Democrats, then, may be to bait Trump
into swinging and missing on bread-and-butter economic issues just as he
did on health care, while simultaneously plugging their own plan.
For now, Democrats are happy to stay on the sidelines while
Republicans stumble through health care, tax reform and other red-meat
issues.
Translation: the task ahead for Democrats is to act the part of good cops in the reality show which now substitutes for governance. Heaven forbid that they hoist their carcasses off the sidelines and enter the fray, demanding universal health care coverage. Heaven forbid they pay attention to the will of the people: liberals and conservatives alike are yammering for government sponsored single payer health care like never before.
The share of the US population saying that the government should be responsible for ensuring health care for everybody has increased to 60 percent, up nine points in just the last year. More than eight in 10 self-identified liberals believe that health care is a basic human right and should be guaranteed by government. And the fact that one in three Republican voters now believes it too is particularly striking.
As Ryan Cooper writes,
The AHCA is extraordinarily unpopular because it takes coverage and subsidies away from people, and a majority believe
that it should be the government's responsibility to make sure everyone
is covered. Fundamentally, Medicare is very popular, a fact only
partially covered up by generations of red-baiting and duplicitous austerian propaganda.
If Democrats had simply bulled ahead with a single payer-esque plan in
2009, instead of the comlicated and heavily means-tested ObamaCare,
they almost certainly would have done better than they actually did in
the 2010 election.
But the heck with what's good for the American people, who are prematurely dying at near-record rates. Ask not what is good for you and your family. Ask instead what is good for the leaders of the Democratic Party.
And then ask yourself whether this exclusive party of wealthy lackadaisical spectators even deserves to exist any more.
