If you didn't know who to vote for in the Mid-Terms, you're right

- Progressives' withdrawn letter and the limits of US politics

If not rationally, most of us know at least intuitively that politics amount to close to nothing when it comes to realizing the wishes and desires of ordinary Americans. An ever-increasing body of professional research affirms it. Among a litany of evidence there are some glaring examples. Having no party to vote for – one, that is, which would represent their attitudes; attitudes most closely described as social-democratic {pg. 391} - most Americans now identify as Independents, and vote in numbers that fall near the bottom among the developed nations (OECD). This is likely the chief reason why so many voted for what to them seemed as figures from outside the system. Here I’m talking about Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in 2016. Followed by their surrogates like Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Polar opposites within the political system. Population is so disillusioned with the center that they increasingly gravitate towards the poles, resulting in the extreme polarization and societal fracturing which we are currently witnessing within the US (also globally).  

Then there is the so-called democratic deficit. An ever-widening phenomenon where most Americans want action on a certain issue, yet the political system remains unresponsive. Universal healthcare, taxing the wealthy, action on climate change, removing money from politics, labeling genetically modified organisms, limiting/eliminating nuclear weapons, raising the minimum wage, abortion rights... A partial list of Americans’ unfulfilled desires.

How is that possible? How can that be true in a democracy?

In a democracy, yes. US however, is an oligarchy. The political system works for the 1%.

Now the fact presents a significant obstacle for the oligarchy. How does one run such a system in a country where the population has been led to believe to live in a democracy; that their choice of a candidate, their vote, and their opinion are actually consequential? To conceal the fact that the exact opposite is true, a perpetual political theatre is taking place, one whose sole purpose is – to conceal the fact.

Ostensibly, Americans have a choice between two parties with differing platforms and factions within each, operating on what is called the right-left spectrum. One such faction, which corresponds to farthest left on the allowed spectrum, are the Progressive Democrats. They are the group which portends to most closely (to varying degrees), support almost all of the above listed issues, which comprise a large chunk of US’ democratic deficit (aka the voter’s desires). Such claims and occasional token actions like joining a protest, or writing tweets condemning this or that billionaire, or occasionally putting forward a bill that isn’t pushed hard for and that ends up going nowhere, is what gets them elected and reelected. Such displays serve to lead the population to believe that there is someone fighting for them and their values within the political system. It diverts attention, weakens self-help organizing, and perpetuates the status quo. It should be common knowledge by now. When it comes to substance, nothing changes without the continuing pressure from the streets. Ask the folks who brought us the New Deal reforms and Civil Rights, for example. The political system exists to sap the power of the people while pretending to do the exact opposite.

Those of us who care about preserving a form of decent civilization in the shadow of the double threat of climate change and nuclear annihilation, would be wise to take note of the fact. Same goes for those who care about true democracy.

Recent events pulled the veil on the fake diversity within our political system, limits of working within it, narrowness of permitted discourse, and the astonishing Party discipline in sticking to the official narrative, goals, and propaganda. The one [Democratic] Party. Made of, by, and for the 1%.

[None of what follows should be understood as endorsement of the Republican Party as an alternative. Far from it. As the matter of fact, both parties are of, by, and for the 1%. The differences are chiefly in style, but also in the degree of support for this or that prerogative, and which cultural issue they pretend to be in favor of.]

On October 24th, a group of 30 Democratic political personalities in the US Congress who call themselves the  Congressional Progressive Caucus or CPC (100 total members) signed and sent a letter to president Biden in which they suggested the US policy of unprecedented and oversee-free money-throwing at Ukraine’s corrupt leadership (read – mainly throwing money at their corporate donors and eventually the Party), should be accompanied by peace negotiations. This sensible suggestion was so swiftly and thoroughly attacked by the Party’s own, and the wider establishment, that the head of the Progressive Caucus, Pramila Jayapal, issued a clarification within a few hours, and soon after withdrew the letter altogether. Members of the Caucus rushed to explain themselves and reaffirm their loyalty by reciting the Party doctrine in their renunciations of the letter, as if to confirm that they do know what needs to be said, and that signing the letter was only a temporary misstep which they do recognize as a mistake that’ll never happen again.

The affair is quite revealing of how the political theatre works. Among much else, it shows how rigid and narrow allowed discourse actually is, what Party priorities are, how Party discipline is implemented, and how little actual democracy exists in the one-party system of the US (the 1% Party with two factions). While the issue-du-jour is Ukraine, the same mechanism is in place for others. Thus – the democratic deficit. Let’s take a look.

The letter begins with a nod to several Party narratives:

“We write with appreciation for your commitment to Ukraine’s legitimate struggle against Russia’s war of aggression… Your administration’s policy was critical to enable the Ukrainian people, through their courageous fighting and heroic sacrifices, to deal a historic military defeat to Russia, forcing Russia to dramatically scale back the stated goals of the invasion.”

The international law does clearly state that wars of aggression are indeed illegal, and the fact remains that Russia did invade Ukraine. However, Russia claims the right guaranteed under the same international law to preemptive military action in the face of an imminent threat. While not as ridiculous as the claim of the G.W. Bush’s administration that invasion of Iraq was preemptive defense, in a sane world, both claims would be tried, and the plausibility of each case determined during International Court of Justice trial proceedings. It is important to stress that there should be a trial on Ukraine, assuming its course will also take into consideration that NATO bears huge responsibility for provoking the conflict, as numerous western experts, former and current politicians and diplomats agree. The trial should also take into consideration that it is the Ukrainian government who attacked its own people in the Donbass in 2014, as well as the fact that it is the Ukrainian military that piled up troops and exponentially increased shelling in the leadup to Russian military intervention in February 2022 (the claimed imminent threat). We also shouldn’t forget that the Ukrainian government practically outlawed Russian language and culture post 2014 coup.

Thus, to simply call the war in Ukraine Russian aggression is to dangerously simplify the matter and demonize Russia and its president, making any peace negotiations significantly more difficult.

The letter then claims that the Ukrainians dealt a “historic military defeat” to Russia. Nothing could be further from the truth according to many independent analysts. The Ukrainians actually suffered terrifying losses, got the western supplied military equipment either destroyed or captured by the Russians, or, according to the withdrawn CBS documentary, 70%, disappeared before reaching the front lines due to corruption and sales on the black market. All the while the Russians seem to have taken minimal losses in manpower and equipment, and are gearing up for a decisive offensive soon, which is expected to bring an end to the war (that is unless the West gets significantly more involved, risking nuclear Armageddon).

Finally, none of Russia’s stated goals are “dramatically scaled back”, as the letter claims. There is no evidence to support the assertion that I can find, and the letter provides none. The goals still remain demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.

After acknowledging the increase in the risk of nuclear exchange that the Ukrainian conflict underwrites, the letter suggests “we urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire.” Ostensibly an unassailable proposition to any sane person.

The letter then quite prudently continues “Such a framework would presumably include incentives to end hostilities, including some form of sanctions relief, and bring together the international community to establish security guarantees for a free and independent Ukraine that are acceptable for all parties, particularly Ukrainians. The alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.”, “Russia’s invasion has caused incalculable harm for the people of Ukraine, leading to the deaths of countless thousands of civilians, Ukrainian soldiers, and displacement of 13 million people, while Russia’s recent seizure of cities in Ukraine’s east have led to the most pivotal moment in the conflict and the consolidation of Russian control over roughly 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory. The conflict threatens an additional tens of millions more worldwide, as skyrocketing prices in wheat, fertilizer and fuel spark acute crises in global hunger and poverty. A war that is allowed to grind on for years—potentially escalating in intensity and geographic scope—threatens to displace, kill, and immiserate far more Ukrainians while causing hunger, poverty, and death around the world. The conflict has also contributed to elevated gas and food prices at home, fueling inflation and high oil prices for Americans in recent months. Economists believe that if the situation in Ukraine is stabilized, some of the speculative concerns driving higher fuel costs will subside and likely lead to a drop in world oil price.”

Once again, a very sensible analysis underlying the suggestion for peace talks which nobody concerned with the well-being of the Ukrainians, Russians, Americans, and the rest of the world should doubt.

The letter then says: “We agree with the Administration’s perspective that it is not America’s place to pressure Ukraine’s government regarding sovereign decisions”, another Party Truth that has nothing to do with reality. It is now widely known that Ukrainians and Russians came close to making an agreement in April and that negotiations were broken up after the US’ puppet, Boris Johnson, put pressure on Zelensky who soon after suspended talks with Putin.

Progressive Caucus then concludes with what must have terrified the Party bosses “In conclusion, we urge you to make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties that will allow for a sovereign and independent Ukraine, and, in coordination with our Ukrainian partners, seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America’s chief priority.”

Eerily similar to what the evil Russians proposed to the West just before the conflict started. Namely, new security architecture in Europe, which would include neutral Ukraine, and some form of autonomy for ethnic Russians in the Donbass as well as the protection of the Russian language and culture. Now this merits a closer look.

Doing what the letter suggested would mean admitting they were wrong from the beginning, and amount to a complete capitulation for the Democratic Party elite which put so much political credit in “defeating Russia” in Ukraine. And it is all about politics, because that is where power and donor funds lie. To make matters worse for the Progressives, they did this just before the mid-term elections, and just after some Republicans hinted at putting a stop to the unconditional financing of the Zelensky regime, thus distinguishing themselves from the Biden administration and presenting an alternative. The appearance that the CPC sided with the Republicans would hint that Biden’s policy towards Ukraine is a mistake, and no politician wants to admit any sort of a mistake just before elections, much less such a colossal one. Shame on you CPC.

How much this actually scared the establishment, we can gather by the lightning-fast firestorm of criticism.

Chris Murphy, D-Conn “There is moral and strategic peril in sitting down with Putin too early. It risks legitimizing his crimes and handing over parts of Ukraine to Russia in an agreement that Putin won’t even honor.”

DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas “These 30 House progressives are now making common cause with Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Green, JD Vance, and the rest of the MAGA crowd. You’d think that would give them *some* pause”. “Which Ukrainians do these ‘progressives’ want abandoned to mass murder and rape, in their attempt to prop up a flailing Russia? The only way to end this war is to help deliver a decisive Ukrainians victory.”

Unnamed Hill staffer “It’s just a disaster. The CPC just needs to clean house.”

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) called it “an olive branch to a war criminal who’s losing his war.”

Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) told POLITICO she was “dismayed that some of my [Democratic] colleagues think that we can negotiate with Putin.”

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) blasted “magical thinking regarding the nature of the Russian threat”.

Former commanding general of US forces in Europe, Mark Hertling, wrote “These 30 [members of Congress] are exceedingly naïve…”.      

Politico, chimed in like a kindergarten teacher that disciplines unreasonable children “Many Democrats took particular issue with the letter’s suggestions that sanctions relief could be on the table in order to incentivize Russia to end its assault on Ukraine.” We shouldn’t consider sanctions relief in exchange for the dying to stop?

The piece continues “Making the timing of the letter even more politically perilous: Ukraine is not ready for negotiations at this point, especially because its months-long counteroffensive has been successful to date, and there’s no indication Putin is ready to deal either”. We have already seen how dire the Ukrainian situation actually is, regardless of gaining territory in the counteroffensive. An endeavor that cost them thousands of lives while Russians have suffered minimal losses. As far as “no indication Putin is ready to deal either”. I’m curious to know how does Politico know this? Has anyone tried talking to him and got rejected? Especially given that Russian president has repeatedly been saying he is ready to negotiate, and as late as October 30. A claim worth exploring.

In an especially enlightening move, even Bernie Sanders, the scion for so many on the left, condemned the letter. Saying that Russia “has to be resisted”, and that he doesn’t believe Putin should be negotiated with - "I don't agree with that, and they don't agree with it, apparently”. Though nominally an Independent, he proceeded by showing off his prowess in the Party doctrine and said he remained committed to supporting Ukraine which faces “a major power invading and causing mass destruction.” Perhaps a pause and a few thoughts on what happened with Iraq in 2003 and since are in order? Did Sanders offer the same help to the Iraqis? Nope. And Bernie clearly knew the invasion was illegal and immoral since he voted against it.

Or as Sanders sees it after some protesters have called progressive members of Congress “war mongers” over their votes to fund Ukraine’s counter-offensive. “Democrats, war mongers?”, asked Bernie, as if Democrats didn’t support all the disastrous post-WWII military interventions with the same zeal as Republicans.  He continued “When you have Putin breaking all kinds of international laws, unleashing an incredibly disgusting and horrific level of destruction against the people of Ukraine?”. Really? By the same standard, no nation should ever negotiate with us.

Sanders is a well-behaved member of the 1% Party after all. The (I) next to his name is for deceiving the electorate.   

Progressives got the message and quickly started explaining themselves, backpaddling, and professing their fealty to the Dear Leader and the Party.

It began with the “clarification” by CPC head, Jayapal “Let me be clear,” “We are united as Democrats in our unequivocal commitment to supporting Ukraine in their fight for their democracy and freedom in the face of the illegal and outrageous Russian invasion, and nothing in the letter advocates for a change in that support.”, “Diplomacy is an important tool that can save lives — but it is just one tool,”, “As we also made explicitly clear in our letter and will continue to make clear, we support President Biden and his administration’s commitment to nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Forget that “diplomacy can save lives”, we now have more important things to pledge to, and that is the Party doctrine. People in Ukraine – keep dying. Chance of total annihilation – keep increasing.

The letter was fully withdrawn a few hours later. A part of the withdrawal text repeats what the “clarification” already said, since one can’t grovel enough once called out by the establishment: “The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting. As Chair of the Caucus, I accept responsibility for this. Because of the timing, our message is being conflated by some as being equivalent to the recent statement by Republican Leader McCarthy threatening an end to aid to Ukraine if Republicans take over. The proximity of these statements created the unfortunate appearance that Democrats, who have strongly and unanimously supported and voted for every package of military, strategic, and economic assistance to the Ukrainian people, are somehow aligned with Republicans who seek to pull the plug on American support for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian forces. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Here we have, in addition to kneeling before the Party altar, an attempt to have their cake and eat it. Progressives would like to claim that their suggestion for peace talks would perhaps have been in order, had it not been for the unfortunate timing of some of the Republicans signaling a review of the unconditional aid to Ukraine. An attempt at salvaging at least some of their claimed Progressive credits tied to the values important to their constituents who, in turn, are needed to elect them to office. However, in the process, the Progressives also revealed the order of their priorities. Power and privilege trump all else. They profess their standing for protection of workers, for example, yet quickly threw their own staff under the Party bus in order to prevent the bus from leaving them alone in the political cold. Not to mention their concern for the global food crisis, the inflation, and nuclear annihilation as the original letter cited. All be damned.

“Clarification” and withdrawal were followed by individual “explanations” and other public self-flagellation techniques.

Rep. Mark Takano, D-CA – “Since the moment Russian President Vladimir Putin endangered the safety of people across the globe by launching an unprovoked and Illegal invasion of Ukraine, I, along with President Biden, have remained steadfast in support of the Ukrainian people.” I have already addressed “unprovoked” and “illegal” claims.

“Thanks to the President’s leadership, the world has rallied unprecedented support for Ukraine. I will continue to support appropriations to aid Ukrainian self-determination and ensure the people of Ukraine have the tools they need to protect their hard-won democracy.” Here, after exaggerating that “the world has rallied unprecedented support for Ukraine” thanks to Biden, Takano professes his unwavering loyalty to the Illustrious Leader and future Party projects, punctuated by forfeiting his obligation to think. That, after all, is the most highly valued trait of a Party member - nonthinking. He promises not to think about consequences of any future military and other kinds of aid his Party decides to allocate to Ukraine’s leadership. No matter the grift, the Neo-Nazis, the banning of opposition parties by Zelensky, horrendous Ukrainian battlefield casualties, the dismal 28% approval rate of Zelensky in Ukraine right before the Russian advance (opinion which didn’t include the people of Donbass, and which tells us how much we can equate all Ukrainians with their leadership), and other issues that are apparently insignificant when compared to loyalty that brings power and privilege. “Only Ukrainians have a right to determine the terms by which this war ends. The people of Ukraine are fighting for their freedom, and America’s commitment to their cause will not waver.” We are, once again, supposed to disregard that the UK, doubtless with our blessing, blocked Ukrainian-Russian negotiations in April. Ukrainians can do what they will as long as it is what we deem appropriate.

Rep. Ilhan Omar D-Minn., the Progressive Caucus whip and a member of the famed “Squad” explained herself, “Once you sign on to a letter, it’s up to the original drafters and unfortunately not all of them will keep folks updated,” “That’s why some of us don’t sign on to letters without direct insight into when or how it will be released.”

A brave, member of the CPC told Politico “Amateur hour on part of the CPC not to have anticipated that,” said one lawmaker who signed on and, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity.”

Just to make sure that all signatories got the message, and understand what is expected of them, Politico explained what good apparatchiks did and what all others who want to matter should also do - “Other signatories of the letter quickly clarified their own positions, and more are expected (my emphasis) to speak out as soon as Tuesday.”

Politico continued with more reactions “Another signatory, Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.), said in a statement the “letter should not have been sent” because of its outdated information, though he still believed in the letter’s “underlying message” of the need for diplomacy while supporting Ukraine’s defense.”

The article then described what the intra-Party cost of such irresponsible behavior could be “The saga could have implications beyond the Ukraine funding efforts, given Jayapal’s leadership ambitions. And Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who also signed the letter, is vying for the party’s top post on the powerful House Oversight committee.  Raskin said in a statement Tuesday that he was “glad” the letter was withdrawn due to its “unfortunate timing and other flaws.” He also pointed out he has “passionately supported every package of military, strategic and economic assistance to the Ukrainian people.”

Here we have clearly laid out how one advances inside the party. You must know where the line of allowed behavior is and never cross it. The things that must never be doubted, mentioned, debated, remain that way or you risk losing your privileges. That this needed to be pointed out may cost some of the CPC members their coveted committee seats.

Such Party membership self-discipline, under the guise of deliberative democracy, could only be envied by the autocratic regimes around the world.

It is worth remembering that the Progressive Caucus is the left-most wing of the “left” party. This is exactly why it is so important and illuminating to see how far they are allowed to go. It shows the spectrum of permitted debate and permitted actions. Two very different lines. Most of the time almost anything can be said, as long as not much is being done. This is what the CPC-30 got wrong in this instance.

After it was all said and done, Ro Khanna remained the only one still firmly committed to the withdrawn letter. That being so, he did realize he had to reaffirm his understanding of the Party narrative, before expressing support for diplomacy – the only way to stop the destruction of Ukraine, more death, and WWIII. In his interview on DemocracyNow! on October 31, 2022 he said “I stand by the letter, Amy. I think the letter is common sense. It is only in the Washington Beltway that diplomacy is somehow considered a scarlet letter” and then recited “I will continue to support and stand with Ukraine in terms of the aid and the military they need to defend their sovereignty. I have been very clear that Putin’s war is illegal, brutal, unprovoked.”

Finally, and at risk of departing on a tenet, I have to say a few words on DemocracyNow!’s coverage of the conflict in Ukraine. It has been less than stellar, to put it politely. Neither Amy Goodman nor Juan Gonzalez, for example, remembered to ask Khanna what happened to the amendments barring US aid from getting in Neo-Nazi hands, as packages prior to February 2022 did? Or why did Amy skip over the fact that Azov Battalion is a Neo-Nazi military formation while covering the prisoner swap between Russia and Ukraine in September which included Azov members? Why were these men allowed to visit and tour the Capitol? - wasn’t asked of Khanna. Eventually, why none of DN! coverage thus far involved critics of NATO, US, and the  Ukrainian government such as John Mearsheimer, Scott Ritter, Douglas McGregor, Alexander Mercouris, or DemocracyNow!’s former employee Aaron Mate, for example?

Instead, we seem to get reports based solely on western news agencies, Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France Press. And we know conclusively that these news agencies are heavily influenced by the Pentagon and have a strong NATO bias.

Back to US politics.

Eventually, if you are one of millions of Americans who identify with Democrats but have a burning desire to vote Republican in the mid-terms because you feel your concerns haven’t been addressed by the Democrats despite incessant odes to you the Voter, the feeling is correct. However, the action isn’t. Just like the Progressives aren’t a real alternative to the center, Republicans are even less so. The political system is a charade. There’s no alternative to self-organizing. Direct democracy is our only hope out of the spiral which is collapsing the US society and will eventually do the same to human civilization.