RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
Ep 306 Peter Bohmer on U.S./Israeli war on Palestine, the U.S. election, vision, and more
Episode 306 of RevolutionZ has as its guest Peter Bohmer to discuss Israeli and U.S. motives in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and more widely as well. It addresses past history and the present prospects, and particularly the global outrage genocidal policies have provoked and calls for meaningful actions to effect real change via an arms embargo. The discussion carries into questions about the coming election, both party's strategies, and diverse voter sentiments. The episode is a call to remain engaged and offers a cautious optimism for the future while urging listeners to navigate the current political landscape thoughtfully.
Hello, my name is Michael Albert and I am the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is to be our 306th episode and my guest this time is Peter Bomer. Peter has been an activist in movements for transformative and radical social change since 1967. These have included anti-racist organizing and solidarity with the people of Vietnam, organizing and solidarity with the people of Vietnam, southern Africa, cuba, palestine, central America, mexico and against US imperialism and intervention. For this activism and teaching he was targeted by the FBI. He taught political economy at the Evergreen State College from 1987 to 2021. His current focus now is Palestine solidarity and organizing for an arms embargo against Israel. Peter and I have been close friends for about 60 years. Imagine that we met at MIT, where we were both enrolled and engaged in all manner of mayhem and, from then to now, about the mayhem aspect and our political commitments. I guess not too much has changed. So, peter welcome.
Speaker 2:Welcome, michael, good to see you.
Speaker 1:Perhaps we can begin in the Mideast, with the unfolding Israeli genocidal agenda. What the Israelis have been doing is, I assume, well known to listeners. Why they are doing it is less clear, as is what to do about it. So first, what do you think, peter, the Israeli government's aim in Gaza is?
Speaker 2:I want to say, first, the war and the Israeli genocidal policies were really brought home to me the night before last when Ramzi Baroud, who's a friend of the network that I'm a friend of, also his sister, was killed in central Gaza by a US-made bomb that Israeli dropped. So again, just really thinking about this, you know how you know, representing 42,000 people officially killed by Israel, probably a lot more, and that doesn't include the West Bank and Lebanon and so on. So, in terms of why, your question is why the US is supporting Israel.
Speaker 1:No, my question was what do you think the Israeli government's aim in Gaza is? Just in?
Speaker 2:Gaza. Okay, so talking about Gaza first, I don't think the majority aim of the Netanyahu government is to repopulate and colonize Gaza. It seems to me what the aim is to A destroy Hamas, which is impossible because, you know, Hamas is much more than a military group, it's a military, political, social service group. And then, secondly, to make this really tiny area of Gaza, which is 150 square miles, to maybe have an unpopulated zone by Palestinians and have Israeli troops there on all the boundaries near Israel. So it's basically an Israeli occupation of Gaza, of military but not of population. I think that's the aim and it's continuing and it just meant incredible destruction of the infrastructure, hospitals, educational system, riders, the people of Gaza.
Speaker 1:If the goal is to, you know, get a zone that's unpopulated between Israel and the people in Gaza the people that would be in Gaza it's not obvious to me in that case why you have to do all the destruction that they've done, especially the totally civilian-oriented destruction. On the other hand, some people say the goal is to get rid of the Palestinians. The goal is either to kill them or to drive them off so the Palestine problem, at least with Gaza, dissipates. But you're saying you don't think that it goes that far. Is that right?
Speaker 2:Sadly, the government of Israel and I would say a large part of the population, doesn't see Palestinians as human beings. It's no concern what happens to them, which is very, very troubling. It's often true of aggressive war makers like Israel. Like Israel, it's also, I think, so there's no chance of a thriving community there and in Gaza, I would say also in the West Bank, it's trying to not clear everybody, but making it so that people have to leave. So I do think decreasing the population is part of it. Again, where can people go? You know Egypt clearly has basically closed its borders with Gaza Because, you know, gaza borders Egypt and one of the points now is Israel has they call it the Philadelphia Cardinal. They have troops along the border with Egypt, making it even harder for people to leave.
Speaker 1:So then, what about the aim in the West Bank, where violence has now picked up considerably?
Speaker 2:Israel is really involved in three wars. I think Gaza is still in the center, like you asked me about Also a war, asked me about Also a war. It's kind of in between a police action and a war in the West Bank. Almost a thousand Palestinians have been killed, including a really wonderful woman who just graduated from the University of Washington. Aishna Ege, who was there with the International Solidarity Movement, was standing there and was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper in the abyss of one of the towns in the West Bank.
Speaker 2:And it seems and this goes back to probably the 40s that Israel really wants to control the whole area. And again, they want to control the area but they don't want to give the Palestinians their citizenship. They're very worried that there won't be a Jewish majority. And if you add Gaza, the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Palestinians within the Israeli borders that they created in 1948, it's already about half the population, about half the population. So I think it's again slowly reducing the population and control of the land, but without giving the people their citizenship, and again trying to induce people to leave. I mean some of the even more fascist ministers than Netanyahu, like Smotrich, the finance minister, ben Gavir, the security minister.
Speaker 1:they've talked openly about a total ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, okay, and then they're expanding further into Lebanon and Iran. This is where it starts to get confusing, at least in my mind. What exactly does Israel think it's going to accomplish by these additional steps?
Speaker 2:Israel think it's going to accomplish by these additional steps. I mean, this goes back a little bit to the Obama presidency, 2008 to 2016, where the US signed an agreement with Iran about Iran not developing nuclear weapons in return, having sanctions lifted, having more normalization of the best of the world. Israel was very much against it and to Netanyahu's credit I mean, excuse me, to Obama's credit he pushed it through anyway and Trump rescinded it. So you know, I think at least as much of a warmonger with regards to Iran than the Israelis and Israel. You know, I'm confused whether Israel wants a war with Iran or is very willing to risk it. I think it's one of those two and sadly the US has abetted it, has abetted it and probably, you know, the Israeli kind of desire is to have an area that Israel is kind of the dominant power there and hopefully maybe allied with some of the really the kingdom, some of the really kind of kingdom dictatorial governments such as the UAE, saudi Arabia, and seeing defeating Iran as part of it.
Speaker 2:The war in Lebanon. Let me just speak briefly about that. Over 2,000 people have been killed in a tiny country. Lebanon's been in economic crisis for at least six years and Hezbollah, which formed in 1982, israel was involved. A thousand troops in Lebanon In September of 82, over 2,000 Palestinians were killed in Shatila and Saba. They were killed by a group called the Falange a fascist. It means fascist Falange, lebanese group with Israeli troops around them.
Speaker 2:And Israel has been fighting with Hezbollah, which formed in 82. Since then, you know, hezbollah has they did launch rockets into Israel beginning of October 8th, the day Israel started bombing Gaza, and to me it's been an act of solidarity. You know, I mean Hezbollah is not my ideal group but it is. You know it does have a lot of support, particularly among the Shia population, which is about 35, 40% of the population in Lebanon. And again, israel's pagers in September assassinating leaders of Hezbollah, including Nasrullah, just seems an incredibly like terrorist war against the people of Lebanon. And again way beyond just Hezbollah. And again Israel seems to want to clear the area and also destroy Hezbollah strategy there. But you know the Lebanese people are kind of collateral damage. And again Israel very, very unconcerned about that.
Speaker 1:Then we come to the United States and we have the United States arming, alibying, abetting, cheerleading. I mean, it really is in some sense, in some very real sense, even though there's tension there, an Israeli-US operation. And the question arises what is the US motive? Not the motive that has existed for, you know, decades upon decades of having a client, a powerful military client, in the Mideast, a client, a powerful military client in the Mideast, but the motive for going as far as this thing is now going and not stopping it, which presumably the US could do.
Speaker 2:It's a little bit hard for me to understand.
Speaker 2:You know, going back to like the 60s, after 67, we weren't very influenced by Noam Chomsky. The idea was that more Israel was serving US imperialist interests to control the Middle East, to prevent any kind of nationalist governments that had the crazy idea that the oil, for example, in Iraq, belonged to the Iraqi people rather than to US and Western oil companies. So Israel playing that role, and they certainly have done it. But that sees basically Israel doing more what the US wants, and obviously I think it's both ways. With the support for Gaza, it seems. Yeah, I mean from the beginning the US has been totally supporting with weapons in the International Court of Justice at the US, has been totally supporting with weapons in the International Court of Justice at the UN and just playing an Obama role. And even to me the lies where, on May 31st, biden made a proposal which the UN Security Council accepted, calling for basically three stages. In the second stage it would be a full ceasefire, all the Israeli hostages would be returned to Israel, a lot of Palestinian prisoners would be released. Hamas fully accepted the deal. They said they accept and they've said so basically since sometime in June. But the United States keeps saying that Hamas is the outlier. Well, you know, israel has said they accept a temporary ceasefire and the sticking point is Hamas said they want a permanent ceasefire, which again isn't guaranteed. But again the United States, I think, again being the ideological support of Israel and so to me unconscionable.
Speaker 2:And with Lebanon in Iran, it seems almost even worse that the United States provided intelligence for the killing of some of the leaders of Hezbollah and maybe even the civilian Hamas leader who was killed in Iran by Israel, that it seems very likely the US was involved with that too. I don't fully understand. I don't think, like I was saying earlier, with Obama signing the treaty, even though it hasn't been restored under the Biden-Blinken-Harris administration, sullivan Security Council, but it seems the US hasn't really won the war with Iran. But again, all the statements saying they back Israel and maybe Biden discussing with Netanyahu what Israel should bomb, leaving aside the assassinations, the mass murder, the bombings, the continual bombings in not only the south of Lebanon but also around Beirut, which has led to maybe close to a million Lebanese people having to flee their homes and getting warning Israel is going to attack those places. So it seems the US doesn't support it verbally for sure, I don't think they even want it, but they're not willing. Again, this is hard for me to understand, even though it could cost Harris the election, they're not willing to break with Israel.
Speaker 2:40,000 US troops and it was a large increase are now in the Mediterranean, including new aircraft, carriers, destroyers, a lot of jet fighter planes. It's really a major, major escalation by the US in the Middle East, making it clear they're there to quote, defend Israel. One last comment, michael, on this. One of the things that bothers me most in this war now, which is over a year old and really a lot more, but the shooting war, let's say, beginning October 8th is that, whether it's Lebanon, iran, gaza, israel keeps saying they're doing it to defend themselves. And to me I find this thing of self-defense, which Harris Biden keep repeating like just so obscene to me. You know, calling it defense.
Speaker 2:And Hitler called it defense too, when he went into Czechoslovakia and other places too, right.
Speaker 1:Everybody does that. And yet, in some ways, this seems even more blatant. I mean, you know, we both experienced Indochina and Vietnam, and there's something different about this. It's not killing as many people, it's not, you know, it's nothing like that scale, at least yet. But there's something overt and blatant, and I don't know what to call it. It's like you're bragging over the corpses. I mean, it's just really incredible. And so, given that, motives of Israel and the US aside, the reality of what's happening is evident, is visible, is disgusting, and lots and lots of people are outraged by it, sickened by it, but also outraged by it. And so the question arises what do those people do? What is the activity in the US by people horrified by what's going on in the Mideast, the US role and also just the events themselves? What do they do, you themselves? What do they do you mean? What should we do? Or what are we?
Speaker 2:doing.
Speaker 1:I don't mean no, I really mean what should we do? Or you know what can have an impact, not what do we do just to express ourselves, but what do we do to actually have some kind of effect on the outcomes.
Speaker 2:I want to make one small correction on what you said. First, bombing in Gaza, certainly in the first few months it's probably more intense or it's certainly equal to, maybe, the Christmas bombing. Do you remember 1972 in the US? The level of bombing, the destruction. It's a shorter period but it really it's definitely higher than any war since Vietnam.
Speaker 1:Yeah, per capita it is I mean it's sort of like a per capita calculation right or per land area.
Speaker 2:I mean it really is, even maybe absolutely. I mean it really is the amount of bombing various studies I've seen said it's absolutely not just per person, the bombing, you know, is at that level, so that you know so it really is almost unprecedented. In terms of what should we do? I have, as you said, I've been involved for a long time in kind of various anti-intervention, anti-war solidarity movements. I have been inspired, impressed by the global movement against I call it Israeli and US war, against Palestine, because I include the West Bank, which is really like low intensity war, and the US is so involved in terms of advisors, I think the US military very connected to the Israeli military too. So I think the movement has forced the rhetoric to change by the administration, but not really the policies right, nowhere near an arms embargo. There was a temporary stop of those 2,000-pound bombs, but then they've continued. And you know again, public opinion polls I don't think maybe it's a big issue to a lot of people, but over half of the population I believe certainly among Democrats and independents support full arms embargo, which I, democrats and independents, support, full arms embargo, which I think is a very, very important demand. Not just no aid but all weapons going to Israel? I don't have any easy answers.
Speaker 2:In Olympia we have a pretty good group called Palestine Action of South Sound. We've been meeting over a year. We have over 200 people have come to our meetings. We usually have 60 to 70 people come. We've raised over $50,000 for the kind of children of Gaza.
Speaker 2:A lot of forums, educational events and it has an impact. You know, not clearly enough, maybe in other countries even more. Macron just announced in France at least a partial arms embargo of Israel. I think it's because of the protests there, and even the UK has breaking a little bit from Israel. So I think we need to increase our educational outreach, talk to people, make them kind of understand more what's going on, sharing some of the knowledge. I think the protests all levels from direct action, for example, in this area, boeing is very big and there's a major strike going on by the machinists in Boeing that's now, I believe, a month old. So maybe kind of work with people there closing down Boeing, other places to raise you know a concept that I've used since the 60s and you have too, michael raising the social costs to the US of supporting this war, increasing the legitimacy of a government that's doing this of this.
Speaker 1:Let me ask the question in a slightly different and maybe for you and definitely for me, somewhat uncomfortable way. There were those activities on the campuses in the spring, you know, before in this past spring, and they were mind-boggling. I thought there were an incredible number of them. They were incredibly committed and militant, they were sustained and you know, it was a situation where there were all these demonstrations inside the United States for people half a world away, in which it was a bit subtle the extent to which the US was engaged in the activity. It's become more and more clear, but still it was a bit subtle. So I was surprised by it. I was surprised and pleased by it. You know, very happy at the scale of the turnout.
Speaker 1:I don't know maybe you are more aware the extent to which the new season on campuses has begun and it does not appear to be happening at anything remotely like the same scale, and I don't know why exactly that is. Is it exhaustion? Is it repression? Is it something about the election? Um, yeah, was it maybe less sustainable than we thought? What's your reaction? What's your impression?
Speaker 2:Okay, I want to go back and then forward. I would say, over the last year, two of the most important movements have been A, the student movement, which you've mentioned, I think and I agree with what you've said both the past and the present, unfortunately, but also, I think, the large numbers of Jewish people, groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, other groups who've really taken a pretty strong stand against the war, including a lot of direct action, that I think have been somewhat effective. On the other hand, as we both know from the past, it's hard from going back to the student movement staying themselves over the summer. I'm sure you can remember that from your experiences. And even though Jewish Voices of Peace and other Jewish groups like If Not Now, have really challenged the idea that challenging Israel, even being anti-Zionist which to me means seeing the equality of all people and not Jewish dominance that rhetoric that the student protests and other ones have been anti-Semitic have really had an effect, probably in isolating those movements. I mean, those movements were never close to majority movements at campus. I think, like you said, they were really important and, given the US wasn't having troops there, at least openly, and they did it in very small numbers. It was really impressive, but it wasn't the majority.
Speaker 2:I think A this rhetoric of anti-Semitism which so much dominates the mass media, that these protests were anti-Semitic I'm sure there were incidents of anti-Semitism is real, but it's been weaponized so much where you know anti-Zionism. Saying that maybe there should be one state, the Palestine, israel that that's anti-Semitic to me is wrong. But I think it has an effect. Be poorly that donors, people give money to these campuses a lot of them would leave private campuses or even public universities being worried about state money has had an effect of more repression. And so temporarily I hope it's temporarily, you know, I don't know that the student movement, judging from, like the schools I live in Olympia, washington, olympia, seattle, tacoma, portland they still exist, but they're much smaller, they're not encampments from going on now like they were last spring. So I hope it's temporary. But I think both the chill colleges criminalizing even more quickly any kind of protest, using the anti-Semitic trope, saying these things are anti-Semitic, has had an effect.
Speaker 1:Earlier quite a bit back, you mentioned the possibility that one of Israel's motives might be to weaken Harris's chances of winning, more accurately, to increase Trump's chances of winning, and I think that is plausible to me.
Speaker 1:I mean, we can't know it for sure, but it certainly is plausible and it may well have that effect. And so we come to the question of the election. They're sort of inextricably. They're not only happening next to each other, but they also are sort of entwined with each other in some ways, as with everything else that's going on. And so the question becomes, I guess, to what extent is the horror at what's going on in the Middle East translating into a kind of a mindset which may well help Trump, that is okay, we shouldn't vote, or we should vote for third party or whatever, thereby taking votes away from Harris and leaving the likelihood of Trump winning greater? To what extent is that happening? And do you think that it might be the case that the fall off in energy and focus, maybe, of the opposition on campuses is somehow connected to larger numbers not wanting to have that effect and smaller numbers in fact not being upset by that effect? I don't know whether that's clear. I hope it was, yeah.
Speaker 2:I think I'm following. I stopped teaching full-time in 21, so I'm not on campus so much. I still give a lot of talks on campus and visit various campuses. I would say, you know from people I know, students and these tend to be more people who are like open to like left ideas there's such depression about the choice between Harris and Trump. So to me that's you know the overwhelming. You know somebody, yeah, saying just you know they've never felt these hurricanes going on. You know many, many issues inequality of income and wealth, people not being able to afford housing, so that's, I think, overarching.
Speaker 2:Who are activists among younger people and particularly among Arab Muslim Americans. Yeah, there's such disgust with Harris not willing to break, you know, with Biden at all, not even really recognizing any real way the humanity of Palestinians, like not having a Palestinian American speak at the Democratic Convention, which I think has led to this view that for the most part, that kind of a pox on both your houses, I think a lot is not voting. It isn't just the third party. Almost nobody I know is saying they're going to support Trump but they're not voting. The less enthusiasm is big and I think what you said I haven't thought about, maybe because, for example, in reproductive rights there really is a difference, that probably a lot of the kind of very liberal students maybe who might have been more involved in the occupations last year, at least on the outskirts or supportive of it, are supporting the Harris-Walls team.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean there shouldn't be any contradiction. It ought to be possible. It doesn't stop you. You feel no contradiction. I assume you might feel nausea, but you don't feel contradiction. Working for Palestine, working to free Palestine like your shirt and simultaneously so wanting Trump to lose for what I think ought to be obvious reasons that you think people in swing states at least should vote for Harris. But for some reason there are various constituencies that can't seem to accept or embrace the idea that you know you can seek to stop Trump. Seek to stop the war and do it consistently. And not only do it consistently, but it's one task. That is to say, letting Trump win is far worse for Palestine and every place else than stopping him, just as not working on getting an ending the war is worse.
Speaker 1:You have to do both, and I don't see why that is so hard for people to grasp and let, except when I think about when I was 20, um, and when I was 20 or whatever age it is, if I know, but uh, you know it was Humphrey and nixon, and neither you nor I, nor anybody I know or knew even had a a thought about supporting humphrey right. And so now, in one sense, it's much more sophisticated than it was then, because people who are on the left many of them are simultaneously able to address the real conditions inside the election, and we weren't. But still it's frustrating.
Speaker 2:Yeah, let me give you I don't know some reasons people have said they don't agree with you, because Michael and Steve Shalom have written this really interesting 21 Q&A, if I remember the number right, about the elections. And one argument I've heard which becomes less valid the closer we get to the elections is that if we openly say vote for Harris and Walz in swing states like Pennsylvania, wisconsin I'm in Washington State, which is not really a swing state If Trump wins in Washington he'll win the landslide right, but it's probably not much chance of it that it doesn't put any pressure on Harris Walz they're advised that if we say we're not going to support them. Like and like nora ericott, the uh palestinian american law professors, really worthwhile listening to she was offered a job position in the green party vice president. She turned it down but she said you know she would support the democrats if they took a position and so that makes sense to me. And you know very close some family members a friend of mine in prison, that's their view that you just so that makes sense to me. And very close some family members a friend of mine in prison, that's their view that you just so that makes sense. But it makes less sense. To close, you get it certainly made a lot of sense in July, august, september and I think just a thing of like.
Speaker 2:I know this friend of mine who's Muslim and super active on Palestine. She says that it's kind of rewarding it and she would never vote for Harris because we got to break the hold of APEC, which you know has had a big influence in defeating you know, like Bowman and Cori Bush in Congress. So the argument is that that's the way to break the power of APEC for Congress. So the argument is that that's the way to break the power of AIPAC. I still think you know issues of authoritarianism, the climate, reproductive rights that there are. It's really important that Trump loses, but I think among people I work with who are younger, it's still more.
Speaker 2:This thing of you can't just rewarding genocide, you know, is the argument that how can you reward genocide and genocides? I mean I think the word really fits here. I was hesitant to use it first, but I think it really does fit and it is really horrendous. But you know, we agree. You know, again, going back to Chomsky and Zin saying voting is small, the main thing is building movements and you can do that the day after, the day before and so on. Voting is really kind of a small thing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well, in general, voting is almost nothing, because it's two peas in a pod. You know it's Tweedledum and Tweedledee. If there's a significant difference, voting becomes more consequential. If there's a huge difference and I think there is a huge difference, but people can disagree about this, obviously but I think there is a huge difference and in that case voting is significant not all over the place, but certainly in swing states.
Speaker 1:But there's something strange about when people I don't know what it is, I don't want to be pro or don't want to give credence to or don't want to legitimate genocide, so I won't vote for Harris, but in reality that's a vote for Trump and I mean that is. It helps Trump. And if you don't like genocide and you don't like capitalism and you don't like racism and all the rest of it, you don't want to help Trump. It's not complicated. This isn't rocket science. Something is getting in the way, and I can understand that, because I feel it too. But it is emotion, you know. It's just a gut level response to the disgustingness of what's going on. That's getting in the way. It's not reason, or at least I don't think it is, except in the one case that you mentioned, where there's this strategic notion that maybe we can eke out a change from Harris if we hold off on saying that we will vote her or support her.
Speaker 1:But the thing I feared all the way back in July you can respond to this. Let me know what you think. Even all the way back in July June I feared if people don't deal with the necessity of voting, even while holding our nose early, it'll be too late to change the minds of the people. In September or October the people you're talking about had already made up their minds. I'll vote for Harris. I just won't say I'm going to vote for Harris, right, so that I can put the pressure on. But there's lots and lots of other young people out there who hours and minutes and weeks of saying I'm not going to vote or I'm going to vote for Stein would be hard to turn around now in October. We have to try, but it would be hard. You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2:Michael, I'm going to switch. I'm going to interview you now. This is the question.
Speaker 2:So it's connected to what you've been saying.
Speaker 2:So this is something I don't really get and I realize you know my number of people I'm in touch with are very much on the left, even though I do try to talk to a lot of other people also, and it seems to me, not just in Michigan, which is, you know, a really important state I think it's the second biggest of the swing states and some of the Georgia, north Carolina, a little bit smaller than Pennsylvania that the Democrats not even doing like suspending some offensive arms sales, doing something, would gain support, that there really is a Palestine movement.
Speaker 2:Maybe you and I were overestimating its breadth right, but still it is real and it seems the strategy, and certainly in Palestine. I would argue the same thing on economic policy, and I can give you some examples of stuff I've been involved in lately. We have time that there really is this hunger for a more progressive economics, raise the minimum wage, more worker rights, but yet the Harris campaign is totally and Walt's too, not any better neoliberal, militaristic, totally supporting Israel, totally supporting Israel, and it even seems to me, in their own terms, it's not a winning strategy At any rate, it's irrational.
Speaker 2:So that's really, I think, even in their own terms.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, before I got on to do this, to talk with you, I was working on an article and it says exactly the same thing. It basically says um, everybody says now Harris is trying to win independence and undecideds, and they're even and this is the part I like they're even, you know, going into rural areas knocking on doors and trying to take Trump voters. I actually think that's exemplary, I agree. But for the other stuff she's tacking to the right, she is saying things going toward the center or the right, really not the majority at the center, and I mean the way I sort of said it is is Harris more popular in the swing states right now than Sanders was? In fact, is Sanders right now more popular in those states than Harris is?
Speaker 1:And if the answer is yes and I suspect the answer is yes then what's Harris doing? But then it goes right back to what's Biden doing. I mean, you know, why are they? They do seem to have certain things that they is it habit? Is it that it's their deepest commitments? Is it that they're afraid of what the media will do to them? No-transcript, I don't get that either.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean I think it's repeating even though I know she won the popular vote the Hillary Clinton strategy, with Bill Clinton going back, triangulation, assuming all those people center left are going to vote anyway, which I don't think is right. You know, besides the question of lack of enthusiasm that you talk about a lot, but even, for example, I mean these hurricanes, you know, Helene Milton, I mean 5 million people supposed to be asked to move from Florida away from the coasts. And on climate, they've been terrible too, Both Harris and Wallace talking about, yes, alternative energy, but we're number one in natural gas oil, and again thinking about young people whom I know and I don't just Climate's a really big issue, probably bigger than Palestine still. I think they're both so important about climate justice, but again, I mean not really giving people at least to be excited.
Speaker 2:And seems, you know, certainly Trump and Walls are worse to drill baby drill stuff. I mean Trump and Vanceance but and denying climate change. But the democrats just seem so, uh, not dealing with the issue too, and I so I think both morally be right, but even strategically, you know that's what I mean yeah, that's, yeah, so where?
Speaker 1:there's. There's a sophisticated argument, which I don't think is the case, for why they would behave as they are. All right, and that would be if they see it as well. It's true, we could pick up votes I mean, after all, they could have picked up votes with, with, but with, uh, sanders and maybe one and trump would never have been president. But they weren't willing to do that. Why not? Well, because it's a Pandora's box from their point of view. Right, it's a.
Speaker 1:Once this stuff gets rolling, how far will it go? Do we really want to legitimate, you know, the more aggressive, politically sophisticated attempts to win a better society? What will we unleash if we do that? I mean, they still may be afraid of the 60s I don't know what it is. So they put a lid on how far they will go and they stop Sanders. I don't think this is inconceivable. On the one hand, they seem too dumb and on the other hand but it does make sense, right, it's a rational argument for the seeming, for the fact that they're risking losing, because they see it as even a bigger loss if they win. And then they've unleashed this uncontrollable set of desires.
Speaker 2:You know what I mean. I don't know whether that's it Mark Cuban being a major advisor to Harris-Wallace and being very much against some of the antitrust stuff that actually Biden has been decent on with the National Labor Relations Board. So that may be a factor too, like the media stuff you were talking about.
Speaker 1:But anyway, it just seems terrible, like in every single way. Yeah, it's very frustrating, it means it's very hard to win a new world, a new society, but maybe right now we can stop the march toward the right and then continue on and try to win, going toward the left, one of the issues. I know there's another issue that you are concerned with, or concern yourself with greatly, and which is very present in all of this, not just in the US but also throughout Europe, which is immigration. And I was struck by the approach of Trump and Vance to the nonsense of the cats and dogs, you know, eating the cats and dogs.
Speaker 1:Okay, so they're not stupid, right? I mean, I know it seems like they're stupid, but I don't think they are stupid. Stupid, but I don't think they are stupid. And so somehow they feel that when they say crazy stuff, they are speaking to people and people are hearing them. And so I tried to think about that and to me it didn't sound like the driving force of what they were saying about what was going on was around race. It seemed to me to be that it was around some kind of cultural difference, that the incoming people were a threat, a cultural threat to your way of life because they were different. And I'm not saying there's anything good about the whole situation, but instead of seeing them as idiots, it might behoove us to notice that he's been president once and he's almost tied now, and maybe they do have some ideas about what they're doing and why it works.
Speaker 2:Okay, so let me respond. So we agree, it's important that Trump loses. I like the position of the uncommitted group that I was somewhat involved with in Washington of saying we want Trump to lose. Voting third party in this election doesn't make sense. How small they are, but not openly endorsing Harris. So we kind of agree. Swing states it does matter Saying that.
Speaker 2:Again, I mentioned how horrible the Democrats have been on climate change and I think we see all over the world you have these growing authoritarian, maybe be neo-fascist groups throughout Europe, not just Europe, something like Argentina, chile also really pushing this kind of dehumanization of immigrants, but it pushes these central parties like the Democrats so much to the right too. Again, if you listen to Harrison Walls, it was all about securing the border. There was nothing positive about immigrants and I'm struck, even though it's Republican mayor and governor in Springfield, ohio, which is mainly the thing of the Haitians, you know, eating the cats and dogs. So I do think there's race involved. I mean, haitian was the Bet Noir of the Trump thing, but them saying that it's really revitalized the town economically, culturally. Even some employers saying the Haitians have really been a positive asset in a lot of these declining towns. You've had this.
Speaker 2:So the lesson I draw is seeing immigrants as something positive and the interchange is good. Restaurants and people is interchanged. So to me, I think we need to argue about immigrant justice, not only economically, like you run. A lot of the economic arguments about driving down wages causing higher unemployment is ridiculous. There's so many studies that I could go into the challenge at. But seeing something positive in it, and I think the Well, that's what we should, we should do, that's what I'm saying. We should do it Right.
Speaker 1:But I'm saying Well, that's fine, I don't disagree, but I'm See, I don't. I just try to understand them right. I don't think Trump and Vance thought they were winning votes in what's the city that? Springfield, ohio? Yeah, I don't think they were winning votes. I don't think they thought they were winning votes in that city, right?
Speaker 1:I think what they were doing was playing to even audiences where there are no immigrants, because that's where the numbers are really in some sense, and they and the fear. It's like the great replacement nonsense. There's some kind of of feeling of losing something, and it isn't just, you know, grotesque ie losing white dominance, it's something more and to ignore it, I think, is trouble for us.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but I'm saying, michael, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm saying I'm also blaming the Democrats for not arguing a more positive, more sure Vance about. Because Vance saying you know whether it was true or not, you know to alert the country to this immigrant fear. And yeah, I think we need to challenge economics up, like I was saying, also by pushing full employment policies, anti-austerity policies, so people don't see if there's, you know, like the whole thing, trump, of immigrants taking jobs for Black people. So I think we need to challenge it. But I'm also saying, culturally, seeing it as something positive is I think what we I wish the Democrats would do. I don't expect them to do it, but I think we need to do that more, as opposed to just saying immigrants don't cut. They don't cut wages or jobs and so on. They help Social security by providing yeah but what if?
Speaker 1:okay, but what if the other side is not thinking wage cuts et cetera, et cetera, but is thinking the tone and style of life is going to change? Because there are lots of people who have a different tone and style of life and the person doesn't even necessarily have to say and their tone and style of life stinks, they just have to say I don't want mine to change. I think they're appealing to that. I don't know that this is the case, you know, but I think that's a big part of what's going on, probably in Europe also.
Speaker 1:In some places it's even valid. I mean, you know, suppose you've got a town or a city of you know, some 100,000 people. If 10 or 15 or 20,000 people come in from elsewhere, it doesn't have to be Haiti, it could be Germany that they're coming in from and it might scare people and cause a change, cause resistance. I'm not sure that isn't true. I don't know. I'm not saying there's no racism involved. Of course there's racism, because once you're afraid then you pile on. But there's something more happening.
Speaker 2:I think so, maybe a slight optimistic hope. One of the states with the highest amount of immigration is Arizona.
Speaker 2:And when we talk about immigration in the United States, it's still the largest number are Latino and I do think the racism is part of it, like there's much more anti-Latino than there is anti, for example, south Asian, because there's a large Indian or German, like you were saying, but a lot of Indian thing I know in Olympia there's really welcome matter how to South Asian Indians, which are really growing population. But going back to Arizona, both from people I know who are organizing there and polls I've read, there really is this divide from younger and older people. So it's kind of agreeing with what you're saying. But what I'm adding to what you're saying is people going to schools with immigrant kids. The attitude is really even more than most issues an age difference and I hope that will continue because of the interchange, seeing that it's not something to be afraid of.
Speaker 2:I do think it's an issue way beyond the election that how do we build a movement, yeah, that really pushes immigrant justice eventually calls for open borders. I know that's a ways away, but I think the argument's really strong. You know borders are very artificial and again, I was thinking with the people you know all these people in Florida saying they want to move to safer places. Why is that different from somebody from Honduras who's also facing drought to survive? You know climate refugees. To me they should have rights too. But how do we do that in a principled way, support immigrant justice but also challenge this real threat of this authoritarian slash fascismism, which we agree is really a danger.
Speaker 1:You know whether trump wins or loses in the united states and much, much of the europe too yeah, the day after the election, if trump loses, okay, there'll be some elation and then there'll be back to business as usual, but business as usual with, with the, with the, the people who have voted for him now feeling that they've been dissed again. You know that they've been ignored again, and if that's why I think it's sort of exemplary that the, to the extent it's the case that the Harris campaign is actually sending workers, staff out into the rural areas to talk, the people who say, anybody who votes for Trump, I don't want to talk to them, I don't want them near me, I don't want them, and there's plenty of. That's a wide sentiment and that's a horrible sentiment because it confines us, it consigns us to defeat, not necessarily to fascism, but certainly to not being able to win anything truly worthy, and so somehow we have to get past that. It's hard Some people are clearly getting past for it, but it's hard, yeah.
Speaker 2:It's hard because my guess is, let's say, trump loses the election, which I don't know what's going to happen. I'm not that good at predicting. I thought Clinton would win in 16, that probably the majority of people who support Trump will think he won the election anyway. And we do live in these pretty different worlds and I see that in a lot of different things. You have a certain news source and that's all you see, and social media contributes to that. It's not that easy to challenge it.
Speaker 1:I'm not saying it's easy, I'm just saying it has to happen, all right. Well, we're one minute to one hour, okay, all right well we're one minute to one hour, Okay, so is there something that you want to bring up that you know we haven't?
Speaker 2:touched on before we come to an end. Okay, I also enjoy talking with you, michael, one issue which I'd mentioned before and I find really difficult now because I haven't even mentioned, I think, among a lot of people I work with, even if they're involved on Palestine, there really is this nihilism Move your hand.
Speaker 2:There really is this nihilism of just the world is coming to an end, whether it's going to be nuclear war, which is actually a real fear, which we haven't mentioned, the climate even more, abortion being criminalized, et cetera, fascism of lack of hope, and I still believe that so important is that we have a vision of a different society. So I think the work you and Robin and the Real Utopia group of visualizing a different society, of course on a strategy, I find some interest and a lot of people do think it's pie in the sky, but it does seem as important as ever to have that, with maybe more on some strategy and how we move forward. So I do really want to stress this idea of the need for that, even if it isn't the first thing on people's minds.
Speaker 1:Well, obviously I agree Right, but that last addendum has now sort of occupied me more. I used to feel like absent vision is absent hope, and absent hope is settling for not much, and also absent inspiration and absent etc. And so it infects the movement. And so you have to have vision, to have hope and to have uh, to be able to orient yourself, to be able to, you know, have what you want, be in tune with what you you're doing.
Speaker 1:But I began to feel that the absence of strategy that's convincing was just as big a problem, that it isn't just that there's no alternative, but that you can't win even if there is an alternative. So you get people slowly but surely to believe in the possibility, but they don't believe you can win, and you're right back where you started. You know you're right back in cynicism. So somehow we have to do both, and it daggers my mind that for 50 years the left has not elevated having a shared answer to the question what do you want? And also a shared answer to the question okay, broadly, convincingly enough so I can give my time to it. How do we get it? To me it feels as dumb as being liberal and thinking you're going to change the world. It's not, you know.
Speaker 2:Let me make a few responses of stuff I want to share. Okay, for me personally, I have a little bit less hope than I had 50 years ago, even though I never thought we were going to win necessarily in my lifetime. But I think for me, but also many people I work with I'm really on Palestine. I think people feel it's the right thing to do. So that's not enough, but that I do want to stress that as important. Secondly, you know, since you know I've been a teacher for many years at the university, with always one foot in the more the activist world and one foot in the academic world and kind of feeling dropped in between, not feeling at home with either one, but I feel a lot in the academic world and kind of feeling dropped in between, not feeling at home with either one, but I feel a lot of the academic left, particularly people around economics, political economy, which is my background, is somehow feeling if you can show how capitalism is even worse than you think it is, that's going to make people radicals and it does exactly the opposite. You know nihilism, escapism. You know I live in such a beautiful area so it's easy to go camping. You know why go to a meeting right. And then thirdly and this is something Michael, you and I have talked about, which we both agree on, and this is more true of younger people, but it's not just true. You know a lot of people I know like think of me, I met with a lot of union people on Tuesday night, two days ago is they'll agree with anything you say about how bad things are, but compared to, let's say, the 60s and 70s, I think the early 70s was a very active period too. I don't use the decade thing, the idea that we can actually change it, and part of it's a lack of a strategy right, and seeing how weak these third parties are. Even most movements aren't that strong these days. It's really hard to get people you know you can't really use it by words, I guess.
Speaker 2:One last thing, and maybe this is more true of me, but I know other people seeing countries we've had hopes for. I've taken classes to Cuba, chiapas, the Zapatistas, venezuela I worked in Nicaragua for the Sun in 1988. And seeing like Cuba's, really I'm not sure I mean the economic situation is really horrible there. And Venezuela and Nicaragua, the words are good but the practice is horrible. Nothing to do with liberation, socialism really top-down economically, major, major problems, especially Venezuela. So there's not really places to point to. You know you can point to Zapatistas. I think some of the stuff going on in Rojava with the Kurdish population is positive, but it's kind of on a small level. So the lack of examples, I think, makes it also seem pie in the sky. What we're talking about. It hasn't affected me, but maybe you know, having, I think, an analysis that capitalism cannot in the sky, what we're talking about. It hasn't affected me, but maybe having, I think, an analysis that capitalism cannot solve the problems, another world is possible keeps me going.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I don't think it's an accident that you keep going and I do think that's a big part of it, and other people who we know. But there's no alternative to there being an alternative. We have to have an alternative. So we pursue it until we have it in hand and until it's shared, and then we have to have strategy. Same thing, but it's a lot to ask people to fight the good fight and lose and that's what it feels like to people. And it's a lot to ask people to be on the side of the angels when you think the angels are morons who get killed. You know, it's just not enough. So you do have to have vision and you do have to have strategy.
Speaker 1:But I honestly, I don't feel I don't even agree with you when you say not in our lifetime. Well, maybe not in our current lifetime, um, which could be the next 20 minutes but but 20, 30 years from now, I don't think there's any way to say there won't be big changes. I I know people. Once change gets moving, it moves. To me, we haven't even started yet. In other words, I'll get depressed if there's a really effective, good, visionary, strategic movement that folds up, movement that folds up.
Speaker 1:But all the things that you talk about, you know the examples that have existed and that now evidence all these problems. I think it was built in from scratch. So to me it's not our best shot failing. I always sort of feel like when we go back and we explain that the new left had all sorts of problems and people get mad at us who were in the new left. And to me it makes no sense. If there were no problems, that would be depressing because that would mean we were as good as you could be and we got and we didn't win. The fact that we weren't as good as we could be gives reason for hope. We could do better, and the same thing is true of all those failed examples. So I do still think that it's the same as it was. The path is still there to create that new world. We just have to get on it, and it's not easy but it's possible.
Speaker 2:And it's not easy but it's possible. Yeah, I think with the failed examples, the role of US imperialism is so central. What I do think a problem is many people I know who still seem sympathetic to, like Nicaragua, venezuela. They reduce everything to US imperialism. I think, like saying with the new left, there were definitely repression is major Look at what happened to the Black Panther Party but there always were internal problems too, like maybe talking about you were saying about the Trump people, arrogance toward working class people, not maybe using the word deplorables like Clinton, but having that attitude.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and not reaching out and not understanding and not taking leadership from others, etc. Etc. Etc. Yeah, I think so. But see, I think it's true also of imperialism and of police power and everything. That's the way the world is. You're doing that, but whining about the fact that there's imperialism and it will fight. There's cops and they will fight. There's repression and they will fight. Okay, that's the way it is. The reason all that succeeds so easily or with difficulty, but it does succeed or has to date, is because we haven't been what we could be. There's an old song they have the guns, we have the numbers. Well, we have to have the numbers before that becomes true and we haven't had the numbers, you know. And that's the problem and it's on us.
Speaker 2:Yeah, one thing I've noticed, you know, for example, in this area, you know in terms of the police and the FBI, you know, I think there really is an issue of repression. Right, it's real, I've dealt with a lot of repression in my life, but I really try to make clear of not overstating it, because I do find a lot of people these days is self-censorship. They so much talk about the power of the state, of fascism, which is a real threat that justifies doing nothing or doing very little. So to me, the issue of self-censorship on the left is really a problem to overestimate the power of the police, fbi corporations, fbi corporations.
Speaker 1:I don't know how long we're going to go on with this, but is it because people, legitimately, are being moved by their perception of the power, or is it something else? In other words, is it that saying those things is the mark of being a radical and one doesn't want to stray too far from that identity or that self-identification or that team that one is on? I don't know, you know there are things that go on, that are there.
Speaker 1:You know, we can see the irrationality in Trumpers and in the right, but we don't seem to be able to see it that well in our own side. I find I see it in many places, but Stein is an example that's just mind boggling. What has she done? It now Three times. What has she learned? Nothing. Trump became president. Trump's supposed to be an idiot, but they learned right. So this time he's prepared to replace, I don't know, tens of thousands of bureaucrats so he'll be able to do what he wants. He actually learned from what occurred, or at least somebody around him learned, and it's a scary lesson that they learned. I don't think Stein has learned anything, or else it's just play, acting Right. I mean, why isn't she running only in safe states? I can't fathom a reason other than to be in the front, to be to get to get media coverage. We agree.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but that's no wonder we don't win.
Speaker 2:No, I think all of us we need, you know it was maybe done wrong in the 60s. You know, self-criticism. I think we really need to be positive about people trying to change the world, but you know, but also be self-critical and yeah, so that's really important. I also find a reason is you know people united states, and this is maybe more true of what I call, you know you I call professional managerial class, but it's true of all classes you call coordinator class. I think's also maybe because movements are not so strong. I hope that's the reason.
Speaker 2:People's afraid to take risks. You know, I think of, like people in Palestine it's, you know, taking risks every day. You know, like being a news person doing a broadcast, there's a good chance not just you but your whole family is going to be destroyed. But I find here a lot of people, for different reasons, may begin using different rationalizations, but not willing to take any kind of risks, even smart risk. And I think if we're really talking about changing this monster which I think is the us, we need to take risks.
Speaker 1:But it's not. I mean, on 9-11, everybody saw something slightly different. I saw the workers running into the buildings trying to save people, you know. So they were taking risks. They weren't leftists, right, but they were taking real risks and they were risking their lives and they lost their lives. But they did that and I don't know. I I mean you're right that that there's a problem on that score, but I have a feeling it's because think people think it's dumb. You know it's, it's it's being dumb to take a risk or it's being I don't know. We have to, uh, we have to overcome some of this stuff. There's also the lying that is now rampant, including on the left. It's just very disturbing. When there's momentum to overcome all these things, I think change will come, but we need that momentum.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I think Mike, just with your clothes. But the thing you were saying about the people going into the buildings in Wall Street, I do think we often see and maybe this is the optimism in me people being really cooperative, like you're saying, taking risks, supporting it, doing the right thing in terms of solidarity, and it's really important for us to highlight those examples too. They're not generalizable and I still hope, as movements grow, it's a chicken egg thing. People want to take more risk. Solidarity become more reality. It's my favorite word, solidarity, but often it's just rhetoric. But doing it in practice.
Speaker 1:It's, but it's, it's it. What are you taking the risk for? And I think that's where a vision and and a sense of solidarity and all of it comes into being. Where you're, you're not feeling alienated and therefore not interested in taking a risk or like it's a useless waste of time. You know it's like rolling rocks uphill only to get hit by them when they roll back down. I don't want to do that, I don't want to take that kind of a risk, and if that's what people see anyway, these are difficult times and yet they're also, I think, promising times. So I'll do what you just said.
Speaker 1:Yes, trump being at even, let's say, with Harris, and Harris being not Sanders and Sanders not being what we really want ultimately, is depressing. But the labor stuff that's happening, the gender stuff that's's happening, the extent of understanding the world, which is much higher now, you know, understanding what's wrong, than it was 50, 60 years ago, those are all bases upon which something can emerge, and I think something can emerge, but but it's, you know, we'll see. Anyway, we agree on the last thing. Okay, I guess all that said, this is Mike Albert signing off until next time and thank you for being on, peter.
Speaker 2:Thank you, michael, I enjoyed it.