This is from Ann Hayden @annfrances2 who blogs at lifeatfiftysomething.wordpress.com

Originally titled ‘The Destruction of Right Wing Housing Policy’ this post shows you the right wing face of Fine Gael and the growing threat to equality that their neoliberal politics brings to Ireland.

This week Leo Vradkar took his seat at the top of the table in the Dáil. He is now the leader of the Fine Gael Party and the leader of the country. The media have concentrated on his age, being the youngest ever Taoiseach, his sexuality, being the only ever gay Taoiseach and being half Indian. Nothing about his right-wing philosophy that will affect the lives of the poorest  in Ireland. He expressed his right wing views when he was canvassing for the position, as he spoke about working for ‘those who get up early in the morning’ and his attempt to divide the people of Ireland, as he spoke of ‘two groups of people in society, one who wants everything but does not want to pay for anything and one who pays for everything’.

Mr. Vradkar was very lucky to be educated at some of the best education institutions in Ireland. He grew up in a home where everything he needed to get him to where he is today was available to him. Food, shelter, love, education and encouragement were provided. He did not have to struggle to avail of any of these things in his life, and is unaware of what it is like to struggle and sees those that do, as scroungers and skivers. Just like the philosophy of Ian Duncan Smith of the Tories across the water in the UK.

The housing and health crises show no sign of easing, in spite of ‘the recovery’. We are constantly told the economy is in recovery and we need to keep it going and only Fine Gael can do that. Families with young children continue to reside in hotels and ‘housing hubs, and the Minister in charge has run away to a new department. He realised, he could not keep his promise of housing homeless families residing in hotels by the end of July.  Sick people continue to languish on hospital trolleys, while the staff struggle to do their job with a scarcity of staff and beds. People continue to use food banks, and continue to work zero hour contracts for large companies who are making huge profits.

Across the water in the UK we have just seen the greatest tragedy involving the deaths of poor people. People who are not in a position to avail of housing through the market are pushed into high-rise flats with no safety for them, or their children. A cladding was used in these flats that was banned in the US because of safety issues. I said in a previous blog, class is still alive and kicking and this is another story of class.

Profit is the main objective for the people who used this cladding in the refurbishing of these flats. The welfare of the people residing in them was less important. This is the world we live in, profit over people.  High rise flats are built by the state to house as many people as they can in order to reduce costs. Certain lives matter less than others. 

We cannot thrive if we do not have a secure home base. Children need the security of a warm home and sufficient food in order to thrive both, physically and cognitively. If children are not given the opportunity to thrive cognitively and go on to be creative in society, the chances are they will grow up angry and destructive and are then referred to as ‘scum bags’. If we continue to exclude these young children from the social necessity of a secure home, we are depriving them of their ability to grow and be the best they can be. We are forcing them to live with the stigma of homelessness, and when they don’t fit the picture of the ‘ideal’ citizen they will judged harshly and their parents will be blamed.

The political right-wing rhetoric of Leo Vradkar here in Ireland, and Ian Duncan Smith, in the UK creates a divided society and sets one class of people against another. This lets them off the hook, as the anger is vented towards those who are vulnerable and marginalised, because of the unequal organisation of society. It is about time this rhetoric was challenged, it damages our society and  is coming from people who are totally unaware of what it is like to struggle and to have no voice.

The voice of right wing politicians such as Leo Vradkar and Ian Duncan Smith drowns out the voice of families living in hotels and dying in high-rise flats. Their rhetoric makes invisible, the real causes of the problems these families are faced with- neoliberal polices of privatisation of services and commodification of housing.

Originally titles 'Theresa May is playing fast and loose with the peace process' this post by Richard Gallagher (@RichGallagher1) from his site WiseUpNews reminds us of the harsh reality of how unstable the Northern Irish peace process really is. New title taken from illustration by Morten Morland (@mortenmorland) 

What has emerged in the aftermath of the British general election could be described as a perfect storm; a challenge to the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement the likes of which we haven’t seen and what some nationalists might describe as a huge step towards a united Ireland.
Due to Sinn Féin not taking their seats in the House of Commons and the SDLP failing to retain any of the three seats which they had, there will not be any nationalist representation when Westminster sits again, there will also be no pro-remain MPs representing Northern Ireland, a region which voted to remain and which has a border with the European Union. Furthermore, there will be no MPs representing Irish border constituencies. This is compounded by the fact that there is currently no devolved government in Northern Ireland due to Sinn Féin pulling out of the executive as a result of  the “Cash for Ash” corruption scandal involving the DUP. There is a strong possibility that direct rule (from Westminster) may be enforced as well. The British government is also currently playing, what must be, a neutral role of mediator between the two parties in an attempt to get a government back up and running in Northern Ireland. In this context, Theresa May’s courtship of the fiercely proud colonialists, the DUP, in an attempt to keep the Tories in government and save face could see the DUP hold all the cards in relation to Northern Ireland and, historically, this makes for a dangerous situation.
On Question Time, Tony Blair’s former spokesman, Alastair Campbell claimed that May was putting the peace process at risk with a “sordid, disgraceful, dangerous deal.”
An important factor in the peace process achieved by John Major and Tony Blair’s governments was the fact that the British and Irish government were able to play mediator between the two warring factions. With the DUP in the British government, this undermines the government’s impartiality and makes any agreement about power-sharing, or anything else for that matter, unlikely.
Jonathan Powell, the chief of staff to Blair, has stated that their are inherent dangers in relying on DUP support and has stated, “since 1991, the British government has made it clear that it is neutral in Northern Ireland. It doesn’t take sides between unionists, nationalists and republicans. To change that, would be a catastrophic mistake. It would really undermine the entire basis of the peace agreement and furthermore, it will make it extremely difficult to set up a new executive in Northern Ireland.”
A Northern Ireland where unionism is dominant, as could happen under a Tory-DUP government, is also dangerous for the peace process. The Unionist State governed Northern Ireland for much of its existence in the 20th Century and this led to widespread discrimination against Catholic nationalists. This raises the question of the likelihood of there being any provisions at all to safeguard the rights and interests of the nationalist community. Nationalists will also consider the power that the DUP now hold as particularly unjust given that unionism has recently lost its majority in Stormont. If Irish nationalism ever had a mandate for a united Ireland, it’s now.
Direct rule by a neutral British government is likely to have ramifications in itself, however direct rule by a Conservative government who are answerable to unionist extremism is quite another thing and would be contrary to the idea of power-sharing embodied in the Good Friday Agreement.
As with past decisions made by the likes of Andrew Bonar Law and Margaret Thatcher, May’s agreement with the DUP is further proof that the Conservative party is still the most dangerous political party in regards to Ireland. With the unpopularity of the Conservatives in Scotland and the ignorance they continue to show towards Northern Ireland, perhaps it is time to accept that you cannot have a Tory government and a United Kingdom.

Originally titled Capitalism and Neoliberalism: What’s the Difference? This post by Jason Michael neatly touches on how neoliberal economics has a total disregard for society and the working class. Jason blogs @RPJblog (randompublicjournal.com)  and tweets @Jeggit. He’s a Scottish journalist and blogger based in Dublin. Writing on politics and society. Columnist for iScot Magazine and author of the Random Public Journal.

It was put to me recently during a lecture, after posing a question in which I used the word ‘Neoliberalism,’  that the term “is problematic because it is nothing more than a synonym for Capitalism and therefore only confuses the issue.” It goes without saying that I didn’t agree. Capitalism and Neoliberalism are in many respects similar economic ideologies, but as socio-political realities they are very different beasts. Even the way in which we speak of them indicates that there is something of a difference between the two. Over the past couple of weeks I have been attempting to pin down exactly what this difference is.

Capitalism, from its earliest expressions, has been a social and economic mode of living; born from the ideas of personal responsibility and the Protestant work ethic. While I do not consider myself to be either a Capitalist or a Neoliberalist, it is worth noting that in and of itself Capitalism is not necessarily a bad thing. To some degree people should be socially and economically free to pursue their own interests, even their commercial and financial interests. Essentially this is what Capitalism is all about, affording people the freedom to trade and accumulate wealth within the wider restrictions of a state wherein regulations limit the damage that can be done by Capitalistic ambition and greed.

Neoliberalism, on the other hand, as a political development of Capitalism, is a political and economic ideology that seeks to maximise the freedom of the market by removing all barriers to the private accumulation of wealth. In so doing it becomes a power over and above the state directed to the ends of profit without government interference. It is not so much the case that Neoliberalism is against regulation as it is against regulation over which it has no control. The ruling ethic of Capitalism is prudence which leads to wealth, whereas the ethic of Neoliberalism is the accumulation of wealth for its own sake which leads to political power.

The success of this latter economic doxa in recent decades has resulted in the near universality of the hybrid neoliberal state; the evolution of statist thinking where the arrogation of power and the accumulation of wealth have become synonymous with good government. Neoliberalism, as the de facto only available political and economic option has had catastrophic effects on society and the environment. When only that which produces more wealth and power is sought working people and the environment end up becoming mere resources and sources of wealth and are mercilessly plundered accordingly. Left unchecked, the further expansion of Neoliberalism can only result in the creation of a world not in the least worth living in.

By Joyce Rubotham @seoighee 
(blogs at https://diaryofawimpywomanblog.wordpress.com)

I read an article in one of our national newspapers listing thirty women that the reader “needs to know”. Thirty Irish women worth watching were described, all beautiful, all accomplished.

These women are going places and are worthy of the nation’s watchful eye. Powerful women, CEO’s, business women, famous women like the stunning Ruth Negga, sportswomen too were included on the list.

I’ve watched women like these. I’ve been inspired by them, I still am.

Several years ago, I became a full-time parent. Only then did I start to see something else. I started to see someone else.

I see you. The woman who is not watched by or will ever feature in a national newspaper.

I see you. The stay-at-home-Mum who “doesn’t work”.  You breastfeed your baby and chase your toddler around all day and somehow still manage to put a home-made meal on the table at dinner time.

I see you. The carer of your elderly parent. You drive your Mother to all her appointments, you coordinate her treatments and medications. You run from the geriatric ward of the hospital to collect your children from school.

I see you. The Mother who works tirelessly to fund-raise for much needed resources at the local primary school. You raised the money to pay for the computers that my children use every day at school.

I see you. Your children are at school now and you have some time to yourself. You volunteer with a children’s charity. You were there to entertain my children the last time we had to wait three hours to see a doctor at the A&E department.

I see you. The Mother of the autistic child. You fight for everything your child needs, none of it comes easy. You endure months of grueling form-filling, endless questions from experts and personal reflections. You will do what it takes to have your child properly assessed. You have a path worn up and down to the school to meet with class and resource teachers. You are tired.

I see you. Your children are now raised, they are adults. You want your daughter to have the career of her dreams, the one you never had. She has a huge mortgage and cannot afford the extortionate childcare fees. You want the best for your family and if that means taking care of your grandchildren for little or no pay, you do it.

Women of Ireland you are unsung heroes. You have endured Magdalene laundries, Mother and baby homes, forced adoptions, limited access to reproductive healthcare and contraception. Yet you are still there to care for the young and the old.
​
I see you. Today I celebrate you.

By Joyce Rubotham @seoighee 
(blogs at https://diaryofawimpywomanblog.wordpress.com)

Miss X was only fourteen. Imagine, a title like that on your head at fourteen years of age.

That’s what we do here in Ireland.  We dehumanise women by alphabetising them. It took a case like this to bring about some movement in our archaic abortion laws.
​
Until 1992 it was illegal for an Irish woman to seek an abortion outside of Ireland. Before Miss X that was the law. It was even more shocking that Irish women did not have the right to information about abortion. We weren’t even allowed to know about it.

I often think of her. The X case really brought home to many Irish people the reality of why women and sometimes, children, seek to terminate pregnancies. One person we don’t hear much about is the man responsible for her trauma. The man who raped her.
Sean O’Brien served three years in prison for his crime against this young girl. Five years later supreme-court judges were still busy contemplating the semantics of whether or not a foetus has more rights than a woman. Sean O’Brien was also busy. Sexually assaulting another child.  

Didn’t we all miss a trick? The right to the life of the unborn takes up more space than the right of our children to NOT be raped. Did anyone go out to protest in defiance of a legal system that allows a convicted child-rapist to serve only three years in prison?

The Attorney General, Harry Whelehan was quick to act when Miss X tried to travel to England to seek a termination. There was no delay in issuing an injunction against Miss X. A high-court order, no less, to prevent a child rape victim from terminating her pregnancy. That’s a lot of weight bearing down on the shoulders of a traumatised girl.

Where were the attorney general and high court judges when Sean O’Brien was subsequently released from prison and started operating his own taxi? Still debating the right to life of Irish foetuses? Another child raped while the country is gripped by a discussion on whether suicide poses an adequate risk to life.

Our national obsession with protecting the unborn has led to a place where women are not a priority. Philosophical discourse on when life begins, the laying out of detailed potential circumstances under which a termination may or may not be obtained. The energy and money poured into how a three person panel will decide if a woman has the right to terminate or not.

Miss Y was also a rape victim. Before fleeing her war-torn home country she was abducted, beaten and raped. She came to Ireland seeking refuge. What she didn’t know was that she was carrying her rapist’s child. Like Miss X, she tried to escape to England to seek a termination. Having sought asylum in Ireland she was turned back by the UK authorities. She was trapped.

Normally under these circumstances a suicidal woman might be granted the right to terminate her pregnancy. Miss Y was not granted that grace. She was told if she tried to leave the hospital she would be detained under the mental health act. Detained, against her will, in a maternity hospital. Once again we see the use of a high court order to control a young vulnerable victim. The HSE successfully applied to the high court for an order to forcefully feed the woman who had begun a hunger strike.

I remember the hunger strikers of 1981. What privilege did they have that gave them the right to go on hunger strike when Miss Y did not? They weren’t pregnant I guess. In Ireland a pregnant woman has fewer rights than Catholic prisoners in Northern Ireland did during the 1980’s. Even the much-loathed Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher did not deny them the right to that.

A disproportionate amount of attention is focused on these women, at a time in their lives when they are experiencing a great trauma. This attention is a form of victim-blaming.

Abortion is a personal private issue, like birth control and reproductive health. It should not be the subject of national scrutiny. The prevalence of child rape, the leniency of sentencing for convicted rapists on the other hand, these are issues that could do with some attention.

How many more women and children have to endure trauma? How bad does it need to get before Irish policy makers are forced into action? There’s only one letter left in the alphabet. Do we need a Miss Z to happen before change can come? We all need think carefully because Miss Z will be someone’s sister, someone’s daughter.

If you’re a woman think very carefully, because Miss Z could you.

On the darkest day when hope erodes
The bullets rain while the sky explodes
Hear the innocents cry as terror seeks his voice
Yet we know in our hearts
That the sun still rises.
 
Black clouds encroach and wash away
Good life that wished another day
Hear the Gods cry that evil found its voice
Yet we know in our hearts
That the sun still rises.
 
Dark storm that sweeps the heaving throng
No force of nature that silenced the song
And while the earth weeps a devil finds its voice
Yet we know in our hearts
That the sun still rises.
 
A whirlwind winding through the streets
A frozen stillness where vitriol meets
The innocent cry that no terror has a voice
For we know in our hearts
That the sun still rises.
​
Poem by @BeanzieFlynn written shortly after the Paris Attacks. Visit his site @ homeisthehill.comPicture by Teo Alfonso @pokerartist

​At present, Ireland has a constitutional ban on abortion - even in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities. This has forced hundreds of thousands of women to travel to the U.K., since 1983, to access the medical procedure. This ban comes under Article 40.3.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, or the Irish Constitution, and is more commonly known as the Eighth Amendment.

The Repeal the Eighth movement has been growing quite rapidly in recent years. It came to my attention after the death of Savita Halappanavar - a young woman who, in 2011, suffered a septic miscarriage, and was denied an abortion that could have saved her life.

Every year since, the Abortion Rights Campaign has held a March for Choice, demanding the government repeal this ban on abortion, and give Irish women and girls the right to make their own choices and control their own bodies. This year's march, on September 24th, gathered over 20,000 supporters to the streets of Dublin.

I'm a big believer in standing up for what you believe in, and expressing the voice we are so privileged to have - and thus I felt it important to discuss my feelings on the Eighth Amendment, here on my blog.

For starters, I'm sick of having other people - namely the middle-aged / elderly white men who take up the majority of seats in Dáil Éireann - having a stronger say in what I do with my body, and the choices I make in life.

I'm sick of living in fear of ever falling pregnant, or being raped, and not being able to afford to travel to another country to access the medical care our country refuses to provide. Or being forced into having a child against my will, because of the Eighth.

I'm sick of not having total control of my body, nor having the final say in what happens in my reproductive system.

Article 40.3.3 is sick, cruel and oppressive. Ireland has always had a difficult and disturbing history with women - and that's putting it lightly. We've seen the horrors of the Magdelene laundries (the last of which was closed in 1996), to legal martial rape (criminalised in 1990), bans on divorce (legalised in 1995, the last country in Europe to do so) and contraception (banned until 1980, after which it was heavily restricted; not legalised until 1985) - and this is all fairly recent history. These things were all happening in my parents' lifetime - some even in mine.

And yet, the Eighth Amendment still remains.

Far too many women have suffered, over decades, at the hands of Irish legislation. Can we really call ourselves a progressive, democratic, developed country when we continue to refuse women bodily autonomy?

Earlier this year, the United Nations Human Rights Committee called the Eighth Amendment "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of women. It called for the Irish government to amend these laws, and to provide "effective, timely and accessible procedures for pregnancy termination in Ireland", as well as the supplement of "full information on safe abortion services without [women] fearing being subjected to criminal sanctions".

Amnesty International has also condemned Ireland's restrictive laws, launching their She Is Not A Criminal campaign last year. As it stands, a woman who undergoes an abortion can face up to fourteen years imprisonment in Ireland. Medical staff can be fined up to €4,000 for providing a patient with information on abortion services.

Approximately 4,000 women leave Ireland every year to access the medical care their country refuses to provide - even in cases where the foetus is suffering a fatal abnormality, or where the woman's life is in danger. That's 77 women a week; 11 women a day.

I'm pro-choice because I believe no woman or girl should be forced to give birth against their will.

I dream of the day where I can have the right to control my own body. But until that day, in the eyes of the Irish Constitution, my body is not mine, and I am just a vessel.

Ciara Pollock @ciarapollock : Presenter on @RaidioRiRa, blogger at http://ciarapocket.blogspot.ie , journalism undergrad at @DITOfficial. 

​Labelling anti-fracking as "extremism" and "terrorism" 
 
The Spinwatch report identifies examples from various parts of the UK including North Yorkshire, Merseyside, Dorset and West Sussex. The unifying theme in all of these examples is that the documents and presentations equating anti-fracking protests with terrorism and extreme-right fanaticism are all linked with the Tory government's Prevent Strategy, which was signed off by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary.

Of course we know that the Tories are totally in hock to the fracking industry, so it serves their purposes to have their opponents labelled as "extremists" and "terrorists", but surely nobody in their right mind thinks that it's acceptable for multiple schools, councils and police forces to equate peaceful anti-fracking protests with savage murderers like ISIS and extreme-right fanatics like the MP killer Thomas Mair.

One of the worst examples of these smears against anti-fracking groups was identified in the Prevent policy of Chesswood School in West Sussex. The executive summary of their prevent policy identifies fracking protests as an "extremist ideology" associated with "terrorist groups" and equates environmental opposition to fracking with Al Qaida and far-right extremism.

British values

The Chesswood School Prevent document then goes on to define "extremist" as "vocal or active opposition to British values".

Whatever their opinion on the merits/harms of fracking, I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people would accept that anti-fracking protests consist of vocal or active opposition to fracking, not a vocal or active opposition to British values.

The Chesswood School Prevent strategy then goes on to define "British values" as respect for "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs, and those without faith".

The right to peaceful protest is an absolutely essential part of individual liberty. It's ludicrous to imagine that it's possible to have a free and liberal society without the right to protest against the actions of the government, major institutions or other individuals.

If anyone is guilty of disregarding "British values" it's clearly people who insist on smearing anti-fracking protesters as extremists and terrorists simply for opposing what they consider to be unacceptable environmental destruction. Anyone who denies the right to protest such issues is obviously denying individual liberty, and clearly opposing the Chesswood School definition of "British values".

If respect for democracy is a "British value" then many would argue that the Tory party are extremists because of their abject disrespect for democracy. Think about the Tory election fraud at the 2015 General Election, Theresa May's Supreme Court appeal to try to scrap the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the decision by the Tory run North Yorkshire County Council to allow fracking in Ryedale despite the 131:1 scale of public opposition to the plan.

Tory extremism
 
This concerted effort to define opposition to fracking as "extremism" and "terrorism" ties in with another of Theresa May's appalling right-wing authoritarian schemes.

Since 2014 the Tories have been pushing an extremism strategy that would allow them to revoke the human rights of people who have committed no crime whatever.

If Theresa May's extremism policy becomes law, then law-abiding citizens could be banned from attending protests or public events, and have all of their online activities pre-vetted by the police.

All that would need to be shown in order to impose these restrictions on people's human rights is that there is a suspicion that the individual could become involved in "harmful activities".

Theresa May's definition of "harmful activities" includes "a risk of public disorder", "a risk of harassment, alarm or distress" and the extremely vague "threat to the functioning of democracy".

So if Theresa May gets her way people could have their rights to free speech, free assembly, the presumption of innocence and peaceful protest scrapped simply because some police officer says they suspect the individual may at some future point cause "alarm or distress" to specified or unspecified persons.

With such extraordinarily low thresholds it's easy to see how the government could use Theresa May's extremism orders to shut down legitimate peaceful protests. All it would take is for a police officer or fracking company employee to claim "distress" because of an anti-fracking protest, then individual law-abiding anti-fracking protesters could be rounded up and stripped of their human rights, banned from protesting again, and forced into a monitoring regime to censor everything they write on the Internet.

Before he resigned in shame after his EU referendum gamble backfired David Cameron summed up the objectives of this policy when he said that "for too long we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'."

It's extraordinary that a serving Prime Minister could get away with expressing such a sinister intention to interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens, but the mainstream press gave him a free pass on it.

The mainstream media also gave a free pass to Theresa May who is the architect of this policy of stripping law abiding citizens of their human rights, and now this fanatical right-wing authoritarian is the Prime Minister, and still the mainstream media refuse to draw sufficient attention to her autocratic tendencies and her outright contempt for human rights.

Conclusion

It's impossible to not see the connection between this concerted effort to define anti-fracking protesters as "extremists" and "terrorists" and Theresa May's policy of stripping law-abiding citizens of their human rights.

The Tory party are clearly intent on serving the interests of the fracking industry. The widespread effort to brand anti-fracking protesters as "extremists" is clearly useful to the frackers, as will be the Tory policy of stripping people of their right to participate in public or online protests based on nothing more than a suspicion that "alarm" or "distress" may be caused.

You'd have to be staggeringly naive to imagine that the mainstream press would put up a fight to protect our human rights from this next Tory assault, especially given the way Theresa May's appalling Snoopers' Charter drifted into law with barely a whimper of opposition from the media. So it will be down to the public to stop the Tories from achieving their wet dream of labelling law-abiding citizens as "extremists" in order to criminalise peaceful protest.

Thomas G Clark Independent blogger & social activist. @Angry_Voice
​
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.ie/

I’m often asked why I don’t criticize Donald Trump in my articles. It’s a fair question with an important answer. 

It’s true that apart from his ‘apparent’ desire to impose congressional term limits, and his ‘apparent’ reluctance to participate in endless stupid wars, and his ‘apparent’ opposition to predatory trade deals, Trump stands in opposition to pretty much everything I value.

I think the cataclysmic threat of climate change and the inevitable job losses that will be caused by increasing automation in both the lower and the middle classes are going to necessitate both a substantial tax increase for the one percent and a substantial decrease in the political influence of wealthy elites in order to resolve.

We’re going to need a massive, nationwide push of human energy, collaboration and innovation to prevent disastrous climate change, and we’re going to need major social programs and probably a basic income for all citizens if automation is going to reach the levels Stephen Hawking says it will.

Those are just necessary changes that we will have to make if we don’t want to collapse as a civilization, and we’re going to have to purge corporatism from our governmental systems in order to implement those changes in a way that doesn’t end up oppressing and exploiting people. Some non-idiotic financial, legal, foreign and healthcare policy would be great, too. 

That said, I’m happy to leave the Trump-bashing to the much bigger voices of the much more widely-viewed corporate media giants at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Comedy Central, HBO, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., because Donald Trump and his supporters are not the major obstacles to those changes I’d like to see made. The elites of the Democratic party are.

The only thing we need to get the Republicans out of the way is votes. The only thing we need to get votes are candidates who aren’t slobbering sycophantic minions of Wall Street running as Democrats against Republicans. As we saw clearly in the Democratic presidential primaries, the people will joyfully rally around a good person with good ideas, but the Democratic establishment will fight tooth and claw to silence, sabotage and subvert them.

As we saw clearly in the presidential general election, that kills voter turnout, putting the Republicans in power. So that is plainly the real problem here. If we can get good candidates running as Democrats, we can make the Republicans our bitch every time, but the Democratic establishment, since it is pervasively immersed in corruption and cronyism, stops that from happening. This has been the case for a long, long time, and will continue to be the case until we force it to change. 

So if we can fix the Democratic party, the Republican problem solves itself. If we can’t fix the Democratic party, we’ll have to rally behind a party that better represents our interests, in which case we’ll still be fighting the Democrats first and foremost, since they’ll be competing for the votes on the political left. Either way, joining with the Democratic elites and their media pawns in opposing Donald Trump is a waste of progressives’ time and energy right now. 

And of course, that is the idea. If they can keep us focused on Donald Trump, the ruling elites of the Democratic Party will successfully avoid having to stop their rampant cronyism and corruption by distracting everyone with a message of opposition and enmity. They’ll be able to keep their corporate donations rolling in and keep the party under the control of the Nancy Pelosis, the Chuck Schumers, the Barack Obamas and the Debbie Wasserman Schultzes. 

The thing is, this tactic is actually far less effective against the Republicans than consistent campaigns based on anti-corporatist populism would be. The opposition strategy can only work if the Republicans perform badly; if the economy improves and Trump’s popularity doesn’t take too much of a plunge due to implementing moronic domestic policies, they’ll keep winning in 2018 and 2020, because nobody will buy into the “vote for us because we’re not them” narrative.

If the Democrats can actually put together a sales package that the American people want to buy, something they’ll get excited about and rally behind, there’ll be no stopping them. But it’s going to have to come from impressive policy changes since Hillary’s loss proved that the novelty of wedge issues and “first ______ president” has officially worn off. And those impressive policy changes will not happen as long as the Democratic party is being controlled by neoliberal corporatist plutocrats and their cronies.

As it is, it’s hard to even tell which party is supposed to be on the left or the right anymore. It’s the Democrats trying to sell us on exploitative corporatist trade deals now, and they’ve certainly become the bigger warmongers. Their candidates predominantly embrace the Walmart economy and are only interested in tiny, incremental changes when it comes to climate policy and income and wealth inequality.

Their official party narrative is that they can keep soliciting financial favors from Wall Street and the military industrial complex while still serving the interests of the poor and marginalized, and the facts simply don’t bear that out.

So I focus on where the real problem is. Trump gonna Trump, and that’s just going to play itself out however it plays itself out. Unless he actually starts doing what the alarmists say he’ll do and starts putting Muslims in internment camps or whatever, I find opposing him ultimately uninteresting if the Democrats aren’t going to put forward something much saner.

If we’re going to turn this country around, I can promise you it’s not going to come from the people in the Democratic party who got us here in the first place.
​
Article by Caitlin Johnstone first featured on Newslogue.com (@caitoz)

Caitlin Johnstone is a journalist, author, feminist thinker, cage rattler, giant woman, and mother of two. Thank you for joining her on her adventure.
​