Neo-liberalism

US Republican Party puts full backing behind ultra-conservative program at National Convention

Spread the love

Original article by Natalia Marques republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

J.D. Vance was chosen as Trump’s Vice President, one of the most right-wing options for the ticket (Photo: Gage Skidmore)

At its National Convention, the leading conservative party in the US promotes its presidential ticket and ultra-conservative platform

The Republican National Convention, started on July 15, will continue until July 18 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The RNC officially confirmed former President Donald Trump as their nominee for the 2024 presidential elections, to take place in November.

Many in the US, of all political tendencies, were increasingly giving up on the prospect of a second Biden presidency even before Trump’s attempted assassination largely due to Biden’s disastrous debate performance and several political gaffes surrounding the NATO Summit. The Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago from August 19 to 22, where the Democrats will officially select their nominee for the presidency. Until the first presidential debate between Biden and Trump, Biden’s incumbent status and victory in the primary elections made him essentially a shoe-in for the nomination. Since then, Biden’s nomination has been widely called into question.

Trump’s second presidency seems increasingly inevitable, with polls from recent days predicting a clear Trump victory. Much of the RNC has been dedicated to deifying Trump, who was notably ridiculed by the Republican Party establishment when he first ran for president in 2016. Trump’s own pick of Vice President, Ohio Senator and bestselling author J.D. Vance, once lamented privately to a friend that he was not sure if Trump was simply a “cynical asshole” or “America’s Hitler.” 

Vance and the “America First” comeback

Vance refused to vote for Trump in 2016. But like most of the Republican Party, even the most established and powerful figures within the party have fallen in line behind Trump. Even Marco Rubio, who ran a vicious primary campaign against Trump in 2016, hoped, in vain, to become Trump’s VP. 

However, Vance has since become one of the most conservative politicians in Congress, fully embracing what has become known as the “America First” political ideology. This conservative tendency is a break from the “neo-conservative” ideology that brought some of the most brutal foreign interventions in US history, such as the invasion of Iraq. In contrast, “America First” is characterized by isolationism, including a fierce opposition towards military aid to Ukraine. However, while “America First” politicians reference policies that could ostensibly benefit workers, such as lowering inflation and cutting on foreign military aid, these politicians have no issue promoting New Cold War policies against China, or chipping away at the little social spending that exists in the US.

“Our God still delivers, and he still sets free. Because the devil came to Pennsylvania holding a rifle, but the American lion got back up on his feet,” said Senator Tim Scott, also a former Trump VP hopeful, on the first day of the convention, referring to the assassination attempt against the former president.

With its total capitulation to the ideology of Trump’s campaign and his base, the Republican Party seems to be attempting to mask a widely unpopular policy platform behind a pro-worker facade.

Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien addressed the convention on Monday, becoming the first Teamsters leader to speak at the Republican National Convention. O’Brien did not outright endorse him, and has reportedly also asked to speak at the DNC. According to a Teamsters spokesperson, the DNC has yet to accept that request.

The Republican Party is notoriously hostile to organized labor, responsible for some of the harshest anti-union legislation in the world, leaving workers in conservative states uniquely susceptible to exploitation. Workers in so-called “right to work” states, where unions are prohibited from ensuring every worker who enjoys union benefits pay union dues, weaken the power of trade unions in those states. Republican-controlled states often have less regulations on corporate greed across the board, with some of the lowest minimum wages in the country. 

RNC platform proudly embraces xenophobia and militarism

Despite the RNC’s appeals to workers, the RNC is promoting one of the most politically backwards platforms as it puts its full support behind some of the most ultra-conservative politicians in the country. The Republicans put their attack on migrants front and center in their policy platform, pledging to “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history,” as well as completing Trump’s border wall (which Biden continued to build). 

Indeed, the platform, while emphasizing isolationism, also does not shy away from furthering US militarism. “Keeping the American People safe requires a strong America. The Biden administration’s weak Foreign Policy has made us less safe and a laughingstock all over the World,” the platform states. “The Republican Plan is to return Peace through Strength, rebuilding our Military and Alliances, countering China, defeating terrorism, building an Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield, promoting American Values, securing our Homeland and Borders, and reviving our Defense Industrial Base.”

Vance’s selection as VP, as one of the most conservative options that Trump could have possibly gone with, also signals the further entrenchment of the Republican Party with its ultra right-wing. “Vance’s nomination to be Trump’s running mate signals that the Republicans are doubling down on their false appeal as fighters for working people. In reality Vance is a Silicon Valley capitalist committed to militarism and boosting the profits of big business. His appointment, rather than a figure who would be considered more moderate like Doug Burgum, suggests that hardline repressive policies like a mass deportation campaign are likely under a potential second Trump administration,” Walter Smolarek, editor of Liberation News, told Peoples Dispatch. “Vance is also an anti-China fanatic, and would likely push for more and more escalation in the new Cold War.”

The 2024 US Presidential elections are now set to be a battle between the ultra-right represented by Trump, and the right-wing of the Democratic Party represented by Joe Biden. To find a true alternative to the right, people in the US may have to look outside of the two major parties.

Original article by Natalia Marques republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingUS Republican Party puts full backing behind ultra-conservative program at National Convention

Milei’s unfinished promises: Argentina has the highest inflation in the world

Spread the love

Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Photo: World Economic Forum

Javier Milei’s right-wing government promised to stop inflation in Argentina, and has thus far failed

The neoliberal economic measures of Javier Milei’s government are not improving the economic situation they promised to eradicate. During the election campaign, Milei made several promises that thus far he has been unable to keep. For example, he stated that the price of gas would not increase under his government, but from April to May rates rose by 450%. He also promised that public transportation fares would not increase, but the price of the subway went from 125 to 757 pesos.

The government has not been able to stimulate the growth of the Argentine economy either. According to the IMF itself, which bases a good part of its analysis and recommendations on neoliberal economic theory, the GDP of the Argentine economy will fall by 3.5% in 2024. In this sense, the recession the country is enduring does not seem to have a clear way out. Initially, the IMF thought that the economic contraction would be 2.8% of the GDP, but given the incontestable evidence, it had to adjust its forecast.

However, the IMF maintains that there will be a rebound effect, and that, therefore, in 2025 Argentina will grow by 5%. In addition, the agency praised the economic measures of the Milei government to curb the inflationary process, fiscal adjustment, and liberalization of the economy. Petya Koeva Brooks, deputy director of the Research Department, said that “looking ahead, even in the coming quarters, we expect growth to rebound because we see the effects of fiscal adjustment, the return of confidence and rising wages.”

However, several Argentine economists have stated that such expectations are not based on the reality of the national economy, as the problems caused by high inflation have worsened, as well as the evident decrease in employment in the country. According to data for the first half of 2024, Argentina has the highest cumulative inflation worldwide, 79.8%, and a peak year-on-year inflation of 271.5%.

Another unfulfilled promise of Milei was the increase of employment in the country thanks, according to the libertarian government, to the radical liberalization of the economy. However, despite the set of neoliberal economic measures, there has been a 7.7% increase in unemployment during the first quarter of 2024.

Milei’s administration celebrates the fact that the inflationary process decreased a little compared to previous years, claiming that this is thanks to certain public policies of his administration. This is even though Milei’s brutal fiscal adjustment, the contraction of the State, and the loss of thousands of jobs, which Milei stated would have a very positive impact on inflation, have not had the expected results. For example, food prices in Argentina have risen 260% (40 times more than Mexico), one of many figures which confirms that the neoliberal “shock” measures of Milei are not likely to benefit workers in the long run.

Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingMilei’s unfinished promises: Argentina has the highest inflation in the world

How will Labour’s new desire to be the party of war shape British politics?

Spread the love

[This article was published 3 July 2024, a day before the UK General Election 2024.]

Original article by Iain Overton republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Protest against nuclear war outside Westminster Abbey, London 2019 | Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images

What’s the difference between the defence policies of Labour and Conservatives? Spoiler alert: there isn’t one

Days after Rishi Sunak announced the country would be going to the ballots, Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg released a campaign video in which he declared “security is at the forefront of this general election”.

It was a grand claim, but an astute one. Sunak and Keir Starmer have indeed spent much of the past six weeks fighting over who is leading the party of defence, while the subject has also dominated headlines (or it did until Nigel Farage re-entered politics and made the election considerably more about immigration).

From existential concerns about the size of the British army to debates about who supports Trident (and who doesn’t) and the shock announcement of the possible return of National Service, you’d be forgiven for thinking the election is less about voting red, blue, green or yellow, and more about what shade of camouflage you’d prefer your leaders in. 

But how, exactly, do Labour and the Tories differ when it comes to matters of defence? And how will rising fears from politicians and pundits over threats from Russia, Iran and China affect British politics?

Early on in the election campaign, Labour leader Starmer declared his the ‘party of national security’ – a sentiment echoed by his shadow defence secretary, John Healey, who said “Labour is now the party of defence.” Their claims came weeks after Starmer took to the pages of the Daily Mail, not his natural ally, to proclaim: “We will back our Armed Forces. We will back our nuclear deterrent. We will back Britain.”

This messaging appears to be working. That same pro-Tory paper reported in March that Labour is now more trusted than the Conservatives on defence, with voters reportedly associating the latter with cutting military spending, not increasing it.

This is all quite a reversal. For a time, much of the media painted Labour as actively hostile to the military. It led to the BBC even asking “Has Jeremy Corbyn ever supported a war?” And, in 2019, when a video emerged showing members of the British parachute regiment firing at a poster of the then-Labour leader at a target range in Kabul, it seemed to reflect a wide sentiment that the military and the left were no longer friends. 

Matters military, it was long felt, were best left to the Tories. After all, in 2021, a Byline Times analysis found that 91% of the veterans who sit in either the House of Commons or the Lords were Conservatives. Of the 44 veteran MPs, 40 were Conservative, while only 2 were Labour.

It was not always thus. The 1945 General Election, for instance, held as an army of men returned home from World War Two, saw a massive victory for Labour in the UK. Labour won decisively with 393 seats, the Conservatives securing only 197. Labour’s emphasis on social reform clearly resonated with those who had served – the promise of a better country for those who had been ready to die defending it.

It could be that Starmer is seeking to reignite this spirit, where national defence and the left are not deemed antithetical. And there are some canny election reasons for this.  

At Action on Armed Violence, we analysed the locations of the ten arms manufacturers based in the UK that have received the highest value and quantity of domestic defence contracts over 2022/3 – finding a significant Conservative bias. The ten firms have 130 locations (listed offices or factories)  across 94 parliamentary constituencies – 67% of which are represented by Tory MPs. Labour represents just 16% of the seats. 

Of the 20 constituencies with two or more arms manufacturers present, 14 were held by Conservative MPs and just three by Labour. But predicted voting data suggests the Tories will hold onto just two of them on 4 July, while 13 will switch to Labour.

It is no wonder the Starmer wrote in the Mail: “With Labour, the defence industry will be hardwired into my national mission to drive economic growth across the UK.” If polls are to be believed, the military-industrial complex is about to be painted red – and it’s no coincidence that at least 14 prospective MPs standing for Labour today are ex-military.

Where does this leave the Tories, then? Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) is frantically coming up with new, harder-right ideas to separate the party from Labour. Its National Service ploy, Sunak claims, is “to strengthen our country’s security”. Exactly why battalions of 18-year-olds on Salisbury Plain will make the UK more secure than its nuclear arsenals is not clear.

As for other differences, while the Conservatives focus on defence spending and global strategic engagement, Labour emphasises European alliances and a broader security perspective. The Liberal Democrats and SNP, meanwhile, both advocate for strong European ties and proactive foreign policies, and the Greens prioritise environmental security. 

In truth, though, there is seemingly not much to distinguish Labour and Conservatives when it comes to matters of defence. As with Starmer working to avoid the red-tops claiming the nation is not safe in his hands, Labour has been deafeningly silent on issues such as the inquiry into Special Forces’ extra-judicial killings in Afghanistan, the widespread concerns about misogyny, sexual assault and systemic racism in the British military.

When there is not so much as a camouflage fag paper between the defence policies of the right and the left, the danger is that there are no oppositional voices of any merit. And, in a world where sentiments of war seem to be spreading much faster than sentiments of peace, this lack of critique could easily lead us all to very bad places indeed.

Original article by Iain Overton republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Simon Jenkins: It’s worrying to see the prime minister cheerleading for war. Will Ukraine turn into Starmer’s Iraq?

Continue ReadingHow will Labour’s new desire to be the party of war shape British politics?

Devastation in Gaza poses an increasingly serious problem for Starmer

Spread the love

Original article by Paul Rogers republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Labour’s stance on Gaza under Keir Starmer cost the party votes at the general election | Chris Kleponis/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images.

Starmer’s stance on Gaza has already reduced support for Labour – and that will only worsen in the coming months

The Labour Party’s landslide general election victory on 4 July has been compared to the party’s previous wins under Tony Blair in 1997 and Clement Atlee in 1945. But Keir Starmer won a far smaller vote share than either Blair or Attlee and, unlike in 1997 and 1945, the mood of the victors was hardly euphoric – more damp squib than firework display.

The party’s win was not down to any widespread love of Starmer’s policies, but a deeply embedded antagonism to the 14 years of the Tory rule, aided by Nigel Farage’s Reform Party taking votes from the Conservatives, the collapse of the SNP vote in Scotland and an unusually low national turnout.

Labour was further held back by an unexpectedly large number of voters who abandoned the party – many of whom were motivated by its stance on Israel’s assault on Gaza. The mainstream media has wrongly attributed this to the UK’s substantial Muslim minority, portraying it as just a sectarian issue – ignoring the anger and hurt felt by many on the left.

Independent candidates stood primarily on a pro-Gaza ticket across many parts of the north of England, the Midlands and London. Five were elected – a record for a general election – and many more came close, most notably Leanne Mohamad in Ilford North, who managed to reduce new health secretary Wes Streeting’s majority from 5,218 to just 528.

Overall, in 57 constituencies, Labour’s biggest challenger was an independent or a candidate from the Green Party or the Workers Party. The Greens’ leap forward was particularly notable – they came in second place in 40 seats, all currently held by Labour, up from three in 2019.

As the new independent candidates said repeatedly throughout the election campaign, Gaza is just one reason for dissent from the new Starmer norm. Many traditional Labour supporters are also unhappy that the party is moving decidedly rightwards and embracing Big Business, as revealed last week by openDemocracy. Labour now seems likely to end up as a centre-right party – effectively disenfranchising several million people.

Even so, Labour’s position on Gaza was undeniably a big factor in its fall in majorities in many seats. It presents a problem for Labour in general and Starmer in particular that is simply not going to go away – and has several components.

The first is that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his far-right Knesset supporters have long espoused the view that defeating Hamas in Gaza requires inflicting punishment on the whole civilian population. It is this so-called Dahiya doctrine that is largely responsible for the appalling loss of life among Palestinians.

The death toll in Gaza is at least 37,000, with as many as 10,000 missing, mostly buried under the rubble, and well over 70,000 wounded. The Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal, recently published a letter that suggested that if indirect deaths – including those due to disease, malnutrition and increased infant mortality – are included then the total number of human lives lost could reach 186,000.

The second is that there is no end in sight for the current war. There are occasions when talks seem to be getting underway but they repeatedly come to nothing, as they have done for the past six months at least. The Palestinian suffering is huge but the Hamas military leadership believes it can persevere, especially as claims by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) that most of Gaza has been cleared of Hamas turn out to be false.

Israel’s current leadership has little interest in a long-term ceasefire. Netanyahu will certainly persist with his attack on Gaza until at least the US presidential election in November, now hoping that Donald Trump surviving the recent shooting will help to secure his win. Meanwhile, Israel’s steady encroachment on Palestinian land and people in the West Bank is a further sign of a long-term insistence on permanent control “from the river to the sea”.

Finally, there is one more factor that is rarely understood. The sheer scale of the loss of life and wider Palestinian suffering due to the Israeli assault on Gaza has already caused a long-term – perhaps permanent – shift in attitudes towards Israel and support for Gaza in the UK, which reaches far beyond Muslim communities.

This shift will likely only increase as more and more evidence emerges about the Israeli conduct of the war. Last week the highly experienced foreign correspondent, Chris McGreal, published a report on the IDF’s repeated use of fragmentation artillery shells in densely populated urban areas. Perhaps the most devastating of all such ordnance being used is the Israeli M339 tank shell, whose manufacturer, Elbit Systems, describes it as “highly lethal against dismounted infantry”. No doubt even more so against children.

The deliberate human impact, especially on children, is appalling and causes injuries that would be difficult to treat even in well-equipped and fully functioning hospitals – of which there are none left in Gaza due to Israel’s bombing campaign.

Other similar reports will surely follow McGreal’s and the combined impact will last years, substantially adding to calls for international legal action against Netanyahu and his government.

This is where Starmer is so vulnerable. Thanks largely to the work of a handful of investigative journalists, especially Declassified UK, we know more than the British government would like about the UK’s close links with Israel – including the multiple roles of RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus in aiding Israel and the hundreds of thousands of pounds flowing from the Israeli lobby to Cabinet ministers.

Unless there is a radical change in policy towards Israel now that Starmer is in Downing Street, the assault in Gaza will remain a problem for Labour well into the future. Add to this the wider view that Labour is moving markedly to the right and the huge parliamentary majority may not be as stabilising as it first seemed.

Original article by Paul Rogers republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Vote For Genocide Vote Labour.
Vote For Genocide Vote Labour.
Zionist Keir Starmer is quoted "I support Zionism without qualification." He's asked whether that means that he supports Zionism under all circumstances, whatever Zionists do.
Zionist Keir Starmer is quoted “I support Zionism without qualification.” He’s asked whether that means that he supports Zionism under all circumstances, whatever Zionists do.

UK Labour Party Shadow Foreign Secretary repeatedly heckled at a speech to the Fabian Society over his and the Labour Party's support for and complicity in Israel's genocide of Gaza.
UK Labour Party Shadow Foreign Secretary repeatedly heckled at a speech to the Fabian Society over his and the Labour Party’s support for and complicity in Israel’s genocide of Gaza.

dizzy: We get news stories in the UK recently – since the general election and the new Labour government – of Zionists Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy calling on Israel for a ceasefire, even allegedly saying this to Benjamin Netanyahu, etc. That’s very difficult to accept and you can see through their actions e.g. objecting to ICC warrants, that they are fully supportive, assisting, aiding and abetting, complicit in Israel’s actions.

Continue ReadingDevastation in Gaza poses an increasingly serious problem for Starmer

George Monbiot: Labour can end austerity at a stroke – by taxing the rich and taxing them hard

Spread the love

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/14/labour-end-austerity-tax-rich-uk-economic-growth

 Illustration: Kingsley Nebechi/The Guardian

The focus on growth to ease the UK’s economic ills will not be nearly enough, but there is a way to raise the sums needed

Never let your opponents define the terms of a debate. All too often, Labour has allowed the Conservatives and the billionaire press to demonise the notion of “tax and spend”. It went to great lengths before the election to assure voters it had no such intention. Now it drives home the message: instead, our needs will be met by “growth, growth, growth”. But tax and spend is the foundation of a civilised society.

Few of the changes this country requires can be achieved while adhering to the “tough spending rules” the new government has imposed on itself. We urgently need massive public investment in the NHS, social care, schools, environmental protection, social housing, local authorities, water, railways, the justice system and virtually all functions of government. We need a genuine levelling up, across regions and across classes. The austerity inflicted on us by the Conservatives was unnecessary and self-defeating and Labour has no good reason to sustain it.

The new government insists it is ending austerity. It isn’t. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) pointed out in June, Labour’s plans mean that public services are “likely to be seriously squeezed, facing real-terms cuts”. Similarly, the Resolution Foundation has warned that, with current spending projections, the government will need to make £19bn of annual cuts by 2028-29. However you dress it up, this is austerity.

We are constantly told: “There’s no money.” But there is plenty of money. It’s just not in the hands of the government. The wealth of billionaires in the UK has risen by 1,000% since 1990. The richest 1% possess more wealth than the poorest 70%. Why do they have so much? Because the state does not; they have not been sufficiently taxed.

…

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/14/labour-end-austerity-tax-rich-uk-economic-growth

Continue ReadingGeorge Monbiot: Labour can end austerity at a stroke – by taxing the rich and taxing them hard