The “Kill a Leftist” Law ~~ EVE OTTENBERG

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/05/07/the-kill-a-leftist-law/

~~posted for collectivist ~~

Photograph Source: Anthony Crider – CC BY 2.0

So now it’ll be legal in some Neolithic U.S. states to run over leftists with your car. What’ll come next? Legalizing pushing people out of airplanes at 35,000 feet? Running over swimmers with boats? Unleashing your rabid dog on people whose political persuasions offend you? There are so many possibilities! It’s already legal for cops to shoot leftists. They did so with no repercussions in Oregon, after Trump took to the airwaves to tell them to hurry up and “do what has to be done” to Michael Reinoehl, suspected of shooting a fascist. And cops murder people in traffic stops all the time. But why just police? Doesn’t any idiot with a gun have the right to “stand his ground?” Why can’t fascists like the Proud Boys shoot anybody they don’t like? After all, if radical right-wing thugs don’t like somebody, GOP governors can’t be far behind, nodding in agreement. This is the new criteria in some U.S. states for how we excuse homicide – red-blooded Amuricans don’t like these people, so yeah, it’s cool to drive smack into them.

According to the Des Moines Register, a new law in Iowa would “grant civil immunity to drivers of vehicles who injure someone who is blocking traffic while engaging in disorderly conduct or participating in a protest, demonstration, riot or unlawful assembly without a permit.” The Washington Post reports that Florida governor Ron “Who Needs Masks?” DeSantis signed a similar law. “That legislation is already a target of a federal civil rights lawsuit,” the Post reports. Oklahoma also passed such a measure.

So these states want to enshrine in our jurisprudence the right to run over protestors. Will that encourage more such homicidal behavior? The Post doesn’t think such incitement is needed, noting USA Today’s report of “at least 104 incidents of people driving vehicles into protests from May 27 through September 5.” Black Lives Matter was the target of choice. And police do it too – eight times last year. Really, we should just rewrite the first amendment to mandate that freedom of assembly only applies to certain people. If you’re not in that select group of patriotic Amuricans, you’re fair game for someone who uses their vehicle as a murder weapon.

Overall 34 states are currently weighing anti-protest bills. All introduced by Republicans, the Hill reports. Over 80 such bills so far. Though only a few legalize killing protestors with cars, the general drift is clear: these scruffy people don’t have the right to protest, according to the GOP. If they want to exercise their first amendment rights they should move somewhere else; Russia or China, I guess.

And don’t forget Montana! There, GOP governor Greg “Punch a Journalist” Gianforte will soon sign a law “that would criminalize protesting fossil fuel infrastructure,” reports Brian Kahn of earther. “It would foist up to $150,000 in fines and 30 years in prison on individuals convicted of protest-related ‘vandalism’ and $1.5 million in costs on any organization charged as ‘conspirators.’” Montana is locked and loaded (and so, probably, is its wolf-slaughtering governor): Tree huggers beware! You better think twice about exercising your right to assembly up in big sky country. And indigenous people on reservations should adjust to hydrocarbons in their drinking water, I suppose.

The inescapable conclusion here is that large parts of the bill of rights are very unpopular with much of the nation. Indeed, in MAGA land, God help us, outside of the second amendment, I’m sure most people would be just as happy without the bill of rights, since the exercise of those rights so offends them. Here the imbecile hordes are in sync with law enforcement, which, at its pinnacle, namely the CIA, NSA and FBI, tired of the fourth amendment years ago. Our police state hasn’t just chipped away at the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure – it sledge-hammered that amendment, with the aid, of course, of congress and several presidents.

Having devoured fourth amendment protections, so that now government snoops can read our emails, text messages and monitor our phone calls, America moves on to the next course, that is, the first amendment. Once a critical mass of states legalizes murdering protestors with a car, things will doubtless move to the federal stage, where some intellectual heavyweight like Lauren Boebert, Mo Brooks, Louie Gohmert, Marjorie Taylor Green or Matt Gaetz will introduce a “Crash and Carry for Freedom” bill, a sort of combination of “Plow Into ‘Em, Then Stand Your Ground.”

“Crash and Carry for Freedom” could allow those so offended by unkempt leftwing protestors that they drove their SUVs over them, to then exit their vehicle and finish the job with their semi-automatic weapons. Law suits would undoubtedly follow, but hey, when they wend their way up to THIS supreme court, I’m sure, the “Crash and Carry for Freedom” bill will be upheld by the Cro-Magnon majority. Even though, according to a recent SCOTUS ukase, Black youth offenders may not deserve second chance, I’m still sure the high court’ll carve out an exception for Fine People, like white Republican murderers.

The goal for our MAGA morons is to whittle that nettlesome bill of rights down to one amendment, the second, because freedom clearly means being able to shoot people. Then there are the other oft-maligned freedoms that Trump so terrifyingly brought to our attention – the freedom to pollute the atmosphere with carbon, or indeed any toxic substance of choice, to poison drinking water with heavy metals, fracked methane and PFAS, to persecute migrants at the border, to thumb your nose at antitrust laws if you’re a big enough corporation, to assassinate foreign government officials as they step out of planes onto the tarmac, to lie boldly that you didn’t lose an election and to rally the entire GOP behind this gargantuan fib, to incite your followers to overrun the capitol and disrupt the certification of an election. These freedoms, so dear to those in the eclectic universe of bigwig corporate lunatics and gun-toting hoi polloi, recently yclept Trump-land, clearly should be codified in a NEW bill of rights; and while it’s hard to decide which matters most, undoubtedly the right to drive over a protestor should be at the top of the list.

Let’s face it: as it now stands, the bill of rights has lost its shine, and so have amendments that allow things like birthright citizenship. Freedom of assembly, prohibitions on search and seizure, freedom from excessive bail and from cruel and unusual punishments – these freedoms only appeal to left-wingers. No self-respecting Amurican wants any of that. In fact, any sincere right-winger must question whether they are freedoms at all, or just liberal mollycoddling of unpatriotic radical losers. Even the second amendment is deficient. It doesn’t spell out the right to own and publicly carry an assault weapon! What were the founders thinking?

So clearly, it’s time to revise the list of amendments, and what better way than to start off, bang! with the right to drive your car over protestors? Iowa, Florida and Oklahoma blaze the trail, as they have on so many matters (think Florida and Stand Your Ground, as well as its Let Covid Rip governor), to a brave new world where you can commit homicide with your car before rolling into the drive-thru to purchase your burger. Now that’s the land of the free!

Misrepresenting the Left: We Are Not Liberals ~~ Ron Jacobs

 https://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/misrepresenting-the-left-we-are-not-liberals/

Despite the current media-induced confusion, liberals are not leftists. This misconception is not only embarrassing to those of us who are genuinely leftist in our politics, it is also discrediting the Left. From the New York Times to FOX News, the portrayal of the US Democratic party and Barack Obama as leftist is creating a perception in the US populace that leftists are ineffective politicos who have no principles they won’t modify. Of course, the Left has not done that great of a job explaining the situation in any other way, thereby leaving the way open for the misconceptions put forth by the media to appear as truth.

If one wants to know what a liberal is, they need only to look at the US Democratic Party. From Hilary Clinton to Dennis Kucinich, that party is in no way leftist. How can I say that? To begin with, liberals differ from leftists in fundamental ways. For starters, liberalism is founded on the sanctity of private property. According to John Locke, who is quite possibly the godfather of liberalism, it is the possession of property that gives humans their freedom. Indeed, in its early days, liberalism only saw freedom as being deserving to propertied males. While not disparaging the positive aspects of liberalism’s early days–its opposition to monarchy and the role of the Church, to name two of the most important ones–it is crucial to acknowledge the shortcomings of a philosophy grounded in the ownership of property. Since the fact of private ownership was a qualification for entry into self-governance it obviously excluded many members of those societies where the politics of liberalism replaced the monarchy and the Church. Add to this fact the denial of political power to women and (in the newly created United States) the acceptance of slavery, and the shortcomings of liberalism as a philosophy guaranteeing liberty and equality become glaringly obvious. It is understood by those that utilize a Marxist analysis to understand history that liberalism is a bourgeois philosophy, primarily because it protects the dominance of that class in those societies where it flourishes.

Of course, history does progress. The slave trade was eventually outlawed in Europe and suffered a bloody end in the United States. Women did eventually achieve political and economic power in those nations where liberalism is the underlying philosophical foundation of the regime. This progress did not occur due to the graces of the ruling class, however. Of all the countries that fall under the liberal banner, France experienced the greatest upheavals on its way to eventual liberty for all of its citizens. The United States was close behind. Equality remains at best a promise. The greatest challenges to liberalism were the twentieth century’s two world wars. Yet, both of these wars were the result of liberalism’s necessary relationship to the capitalist economy. World War I was the result of a rivalry between empires that had run out of new lands to conquer. Those empires then turned on each other in an attempt to steal each other’s colonies. World War Two was a direct assault on the principles of liberalism by the totalitarian philosophy of fascism.

This brings us neatly to the historical moment when liberalism became identified with governmental intervention into the domestic economy in ways not seen before. Instead of helping only the wealthy and their corporations dominate the economy as in the past, liberals began to encourage the installation of governmental controls on unfettered capitalism. This did not happen because liberals were interested in destroying capitalism, but in saving it. The institutions of capital in much of the world were under heavy fire from workers and others in the years preceding World War Two. Unlike the conservative free marketeers in public life, liberals during the reign of FDR understood that the only way to save capitalism from what they considered the twin evils of Bolshevism and fascism was to institute programs that would guarantee working people work and some minimum financial security. Government programs designed to provide this minimal security were legislated under intense attacks from the free marketeers and were the result of years of strikes and other battles from the labor Left. It is reasonable to state that these safety net programs and the transformation of the US economy to a Keynesian model that relied heavily on the production and sale of war materials did save capitalism in the United States and, consequently, throughout much of the world. This also placed the United States into the role of the primary capitalist and imperialist power. This transformation did at least two things. It insured that war and the preparation for war would continue to be a growth industry for US business and it created a situation where US workers (mostly white males at the time) would be able to live a relatively good life in terms of income and job security, thanks to the intensified exploitation of labor forces in the developing world. It also allowed the liberal government to push through programs like Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Medicare.

The peak of postwar liberalism in the US was the 1960s. Its greatest triumph was passing legislation that ended legal apartheid in the US and its greatest defeat was the defeat of US forces in Southeast Asia. The latter, which was presented to the world as a mission to bring the liberal ideals of liberty and equality to the people of that region of the world, was disproved. The actual conduct of the war exposed this presentation for the lie it was: a bloody and brutal attempt to destroy a nation and a people that bordered on genocide. It also gave the US Left, which was at its greatest popularity since the 1930s, the opportunity to expose the myth of liberalism. That is, that liberalism’s ideals of liberty and equality could not be obtained under the economic machine of capitalism. This contradiction was apparent both in Vietnam and in the US, as the struggle for racial equality became an effort by the government to repress those individuals and groups dedicated to achieving that equality.

The post World War Two years of capitalist expansion were followed by years of contraction that began in the early 1970s (most agree that 1973 was the exact year). This created a fear among the capitalist class and its governmental sycophants that they might lose their position in the world. So, they began to cut back on labor costs, shipping operations to the non-union southern US and then overseas and reneging on retirement promises and health care contracts. At first, there were those among the liberal establishment in the US who stood with the workers and opposed these moves. However, by the time the ultraright administration of Ronald Reagan was out of office, it was almost impossible to find a liberal who would stand with striking workers. Indeed, it was getting pretty difficult to find a national union official who would stand with striking workers. The free marketeers were back on top and were once again in complete control of the economic policy of Washington. This period saw the rise of a new type of liberal (the neoliberals) to positions of power in the White House and throughout Washington. Neoliberal Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to halt so-called free trade agreement known as NAFTA and then pushed it through Congress in his first years in office. NAFTA and other free trade agreements were not about free trade, but about forcing already indebted nations of the developing world to accept US goods while destroying their own economies. At the same time, credit rules began to be loosened in the United States, resulting in the creation of untold billions of dollars that did not truly exist. Yet, as long as everyone from the individual getting a home loan to the World Bank forcing austerity measures on national governments believed that the money was good there was no apparent problem. The neoliberal model of world development–a model that encouraged dependence on US banks and corporations and espoused the philosophy that the free market would solve all social ills–reigned supreme.

As for the liberal political program, it became a mere shadow of its earlier self. No longer were society wide programs to eliminate poverty like the Great Society programs mentioned earlier considered. Instead, the liberals looked at such programs and destroyed them under the guise of reform. Perhaps the best example of this strategy can be found in Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Act of 1996, a piece of legislation that took free marketeer Ronald Reagan’s statement that people in the US were only poor by choice and made that statement policy. Even when it came to identity politics, the liberals were hesitant to push their belief in equality too far. Instead of demanding legislation insuring de jure equality for the LBGT community, the Clinton administration chose to institute ambiguous policies that clarified little and arguably caused more discrimination. In addition, during his campaign, Clinton borrowed from the racist Southern strategy of the GOP and attacked performer Sister Souljah for her statements about black resistance to white racists. An adjunct to this more conservative social stance could be seen in liberals public embrace of religious figures and politics. Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party also supported the 1995 legislation increasing the number of federal offenses that could result in the death penalty while further militarizing the nation’s police forces. The US military attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 that came after forcing the Belgrade government to accept a peace agreement that guaranteed war was the final act in a reign that reminded everyone on the left that liberalism exists to defend the interests of the bourgeoisie.

The Left believes in justice. According to most liberals, so do they. However, the Left also believes that there can not be genuine justice for all unless there is economic justice for all. To put it briefly, human rights can not exist for all regardless of class until economic inequality is addressed and minimized. Ideally, this means that the motivation of profit is eliminated altogether. It does not deny the right of people to own their own property, but it does deny those who would profit from letting others use that property through rent. Unlike liberalism, leftists publicly acknowledge the fundamental nature economics plays in how political structures operate. This doesn’t mean that liberals don’t understand the essential role capitalism plays in maintaining the liberal state in all its guises, it just means that leftists know that to lessen the inequalities that exist under capitalism, it is necessary to change it with the eventual goal of ending its predominant role in determining social relations. In short, leftists understand that capitalism is a fundamental source of social inequalities, while liberals tend to believe that, if capitalism cannot cure those inequities, it can surely help lessen them. This belief exists despite the historical empirical evidence that the opposite is true.

If one looks at history, it seems apparent that leftism arose in response to the failings of the original liberal projects of the French revolution and the American war for independence. Both of these catalytic events did at least two important things. They ended the power of the monarchy and put the newly forming bourgeois class in power. Meanwhile, the peasants and the growing industrial working class discovered that the ideals of liberty and equality did not apply to them. In fact, their unequal status in relation to the bourgeoisie was essential to the rule of that class. This realization created a need for a different political philosophy that progressed beyond the principles of the French Revolution. Like the philosophy of that revolution, this newer philosophy was born from the experience of the oppressed. It found its most complete expression in the pens of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Liberals fear the end of capitalism and therefore will not support those who desire to undermine it. This is why they supported the Cold War. It is why they support the establishment of a client state in Iraq and why they support the expansion of the US war in Afghanistan. It is why they support a health care bill that is not single payer but supportive of the insurance industry. It is why Barack Obama had no doubts when he continued the Bush bailout of Wall Street. The musician Phil Ochs said it like this in his 1965 song “Love Me, Love Me I’m a Liberal.”

But don’t talk about revolution
That’s going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal…
There’s no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

Like liberals, there are several varieties of leftists. All, however, share an understanding that capitalism is an essentially unfair economic system that rewards those who already have capital much more frequently than those who just work their tails off. They also understand that capitalism needs wars to survive and requires inequality to function. This is why they oppose it. As stated before, liberals have a much rosier view of capitalism and have historically been willing to do whatever it takes to save it. So, while they may be the Left’s occasional allies, they are not the Left, no matter how many times FOX News and the New York Times say they are.