Most of the commentary regarding Hillary and Bernie on these pages has focused on domestic issues. But it is of equal importance to examine their views on foreign policy. In this regard, I find Hillary wholly unacceptable. Her vote for the Iraq war was notably inexcusable. In her comments leading up to her vote, she actually trotted out the inherently insane idea that Saddam – a secularist who hated and hunted down Wahabi extremists – was collaborating with Al Qaeda in terrorist schemes. Hillary, an intelligent person, could not possibly have believed this idiotic canard concocted by the White House – she simply sniffed the political winds and concluded that an attack on Saddam would be politically popular. When Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector who had worked in Iraq for many years, was making the rounds of Congress to explain that the evidence for Saddam’s weapons was utter bunk, Hillary flatly refused to see him – her mind had already been made up. She and her co-conspirators therefore set in motion a process that led to the death or displacement of millions of Iraqis, tens of thousands of dead or maimed Americans, trillions of dollars of unfunded expense, and the emergence of ISIS as the Sunni alternative to Saddam (who had protected religious minorities).
Her tenure as Secretary of State – one of Obama’s worst decisions – was hardly more reassuring. Her tacit support of the right-wing coup in Honduras, in defiance of the international community, led to the resurgence of right-wing death squads and a mass exodus of terrified Hondurans seeking asylum in the U.S. that further ignited anti-immigrant hysteria in the U.S. Her efforts to destabilize Assad by arming “moderate” insurgents has played directly into the hands of ISIS and helped Syria descend into total horror. Her meddling in Libya, providing arms and air support for the rebels without UN authorization, led to the total collapse of Libyan society, a land now overrun with competing warlords. (Ironically, she has only been criticized for her alleged culpability in the murder of our diplomatic personnel in Benghazi – an allegation which has been shown to be total rubbish.)
Several years ago, when Brazil and Turkey offered to defuse the standoff with Iran by taking Iran’s nuclear material and converting it to fuel rods not usable for bomb production – an initiative which Obama initially encouraged – Hillary’s State Department blocked the deal. It’s hard to imagine that the current Iran accord could have been achieved with Hillary at State rather than Kerry.
Obama won the votes of many Armenian-Americans in 2008 by pledging to acknowledge the Armenian holocaust once he was elected. However, after Obama’s election, Hillary’s State Department insisted that Realpolitik demanded not offending Turkey – so the Armenians were totally betrayed.
Hillary’s neo-con appointee Victoria Nuland – carrying on Hillary’s legacy after she left State – helped to foment the coup that brought down the elected government in Ukraine. After Yanukovich had made a deal with European powers to hold early elections in which he would not run – a deal which could have spared Ukraine its current agony – neo-Nazi militias seized government buildings in Kiev, forcing Yanukovich and his political colleagues to flee for their lives. The decision of the State Department to immediately recognize the coup government cemented its power, leading to the subsequent revolt of Russophilic Eastern Ukraine and the current civil war.
Much of Hillary’s international meddling over the years has been motivated by her slavish devotion to Likudnik Israeli policies supported by wealthy American donors. Destroying Iraq, Syria, and Iran, viewed as credible opponents to Israel’s gradual assimilation of the West Bank has been a key strategy underlying Netanyahu’s career; the U.S.’s animus towards these countries is no accident, as most American politicians live in terror of opposition by AIPAC. Recently, Hillary has further disgraced herself with an obsequious letter she sent to the pro-Likudnik mega-donor Haim Saban, in which she pledged as President to do all in her power to crush the BDS movement – effectively implying that the Israeli West Bank settlements are legal, in defiance to international and long-standing US policy. But throwing the entire Palestinian people under the bus – rather like the sanctions against Iraq during Bill’s administration that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children – is apparently “worth it”, in the immortal phrase of Madeline Albright. Anyone with a brain knows that the chief reason the U.S. is hated throughout the Moslem world is our knee-jerk support for anything Israel chooses to do – a phenomenon that reflects control of our politicians by Likudnik money and the continuing brain-washing of the American people by our subservient media; the rest of the world must believe we live in a parallel universe. (Ironically, the U.S. was the most admired nation in the Arab world immediately following World War II.)
Bernie Sanders, in contrast, strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, delivering a highly prescient speech in the Senate that has become a classic. He opposed the assault on Libya and the coup in Honduras, and now wants us to keep US ground troops out of Syria and Iraq. Although he doesn’t wholly rule out the use of drone strikes, he is well aware that the civilian casualties often caused by these strikes are profoundly counterproductive. He insists that the Palestinian people should have their own sovereign state in line with UN mandates, and has criticized the grossly disproportionate assaults of Israel on Gaza. The fact that he has lived and worked on a kibbutz and lost many relatives in the Holocaust would shield him from scurrilous attacks when he stood up to right-wing Israeli governments. Most importantly, he feels that military power should only be used as a last option after diplomatic strategies have failed. He even opposed the first Gulf War, because there was good reason to believe that Saddam could be persuaded to leave Kuwait voluntarily; the vast carnage that has been visited Iraq over the last quarter century might have been avoided if Papa Bush hadn't decided to abandon diplomacy and "teach Saddam a lesson."
One of the things that I most admire about Bernie is that, in his long stump speech, he never once uses the word “terrorists". Instead, he focuses on real issues. During this century, many more Americans have drowned in bathtubs than have been killed by Islamic terrorists. 9/11 was a once-in-a-lifetime fluke that can never be repeated. The media- and politician-driven hysteria among the American people about “terrorists” has proved to be the ideal strategy for continuing our ever-escalated expenditures on our military and on wars of choice. Bernie surely knows that, until our grotesque overspending on the military is ratcheted down, the Scandinavian-style social benefits he wants for Americans will be unaffordable.
With respect to domestic affairs, Hillary is somewhat less objectionable; I actually suspect that she is less of a Republican than Obama is. (Yes, Obama did once describe himself as a “moderate Republican”.) Nonetheless, her reliance on Wall Street funding and other wealthy donors implies that she cannot forthrightly support the increased taxes on Wall Street and the rich that would enable the U.S. to provide the more generous social benefits that Americans want and deserve. She is unlikely to support the re-regulation of Wall Street that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren realize is crucial to the protection of the American economy, and has an ambiguous attitude toward international trade deals that promote outsourcing of American jobs and tread on American sovereignty. And her response to the crisis of global warming will necessarily be less aggressive than it needs to be if she is afraid to tread on the toes of moneyed interests. Bernie’s refusal to take big-money contributions is an inestimable advantage in these regards – his only agenda is to do the right thing for the American people and the planet. The fact that Hillary was paid more than Bernie’s net worth for one speech to a corporation that supports TPP has to raise questions about Hillary’s priorities.
I greatly respect the efforts that Hillary has made to support women’s rights worldwide, and empathize with women who desire to see a woman elected President. But it’s just a matter of time before a woman does indeed become our President. Worldwide, quite a number of women have become heads of state (albeit many of them, like Hillary, have ridden on the coattails of their husbands). The election of Obama was actually a much greater breakthrough; I’m not aware of any other black person who has been elected president of a majority-white nation. And all the more remarkable given the American tradition of slavery and racism. In any case, seeking to elect Hillary for the sole purpose of achieving a woman President would be inane and do a disservice to our future.
Can any sane progressive person who watches Bernie’s riveting, passionate stump speech – resembling in spirit FDR’s visionary Second Bill of Rights address, and regularly bringing down the house - and who compares this to Hillary’s tepid efforts in which she bravely criticizes various Republican pinheads, genuinely prefer Hillary’s presentation? It’s quite noticeable that, in the give-and-take sniping between Hillary and Bernie supporters on DKos, Hillary supporters hardly ever attack Bernie by claiming that Hillary’s policies are superior. It’s always that Bernie is supposedly unelectable. (Albeit one DKos pundit did bravely remark recently that he preferred Hillary because he thinks TPP is a good idea!) The meme that Bernie can’t appeal to people of color is particularly disingenuous when you consider that laws pushed through by the Clintons during the 90s – explicitly criticized by BLM protestors when they confronted Hillary recently – have had a catastrophic effect on Black Americans; often left unmentioned is the fact that Bernie had opposed all of these measures! People of color will be happy to support Bernie once they hear his message, and learn of his lifelong dedication to racial justice.
For years, Bernie has been my favorite commentator on the MSNBC public affairs shows. Over the last few months, surveying the scope of Bernie’s career, I have reached the conclusion that Bernie is the most admirable American politician of my lifetime (I go back to 1951). His consistent dedication to the best interests of all the American people, as opposed to the interests of those best capable of funding political campaigns, is inspiring. In contrast to Hillary, who has made an art form of consulting focus groups and telling people what she thinks they want to hear, Bernie never uses a focus group, because his views are informed by his intellect and moral compass, not by the pursuit of popularity with voters who can often be ignorant and mean-spirited. It’s no accident that, with minimal funding, he received 71% of the votes in his last election – receiving the votes of many Republicans who couldn’t have agreed with him on some issues, but who admired his consistent integrity, honesty, and sincere dedication to the welfare of people. And, despite Bernie’s growing popularity, self-aggrandizement has always been the farthest thing from his mind.
In contrast, it’s clear that most Americans simply do not like Hillary. She doesn’t have Bill’s charisma and charm – nor Obama’s (face it, though he has often infuriated me, Obama is the coolest President we have ever had) and she strikes many people as palpably phony and scripted. (Of course, it doesn’t help that for years the Republicans have been attacking the Clintons remorselessly for all the wrong reasons.) Nonetheless, if nominated, Hillary will probably have a good chance to defeat whatever the Republican National Convention spews forth. But this may not be a slam dunk, especially if the email controversy spins off in adverse directions.
I would wager that Bernie would actually have a better chance of winning the election than Hillary would. Bernie’s palpable sincerity and passion – and the fact that he cannot be bought - is just too compelling. His campaign highlights themes that are popular with the large majority of Americans - keeping jobs in America, rebuilding our infrastructure, insuring access to medical care and affordable higher education, preserving and expanding Social Security, taxing Wall Street, etc. Trying to slander Bernie as a "socialist" will only work for voters who are unwilling to listen to Bernie's two-minute explanation, which totally defuses the issue. He will destroy any Republican in a debate - that's why Bernie wants to debate Republicans now! Social media and the avid enthusiasm of his volunteers will compensate for his lack of a SuperPac. And there is every reason to expect that he would attract vast numbers of new voters to the polls - most notably among the Millenials who will represent 39% of eligible voters in the 2016 election. Bernie's chief hurdle will be getting the nomination - it remains to be seen whether enough voters can be reached with his message prior to the primaries. But after that it would be smooth sailing to victory and a Presidency that the whole world could admire.
So, from my perspective, supporting Bernie is an absolute no-brainer.