29 Comments

Time to drop the tribal labels, far right, far left, red, blue, Democrat, Republican. I am sick and tired of that name-calling being used as a self-sufficient weapon. We are Americans. I am a Republican who appreciated this balanced essay; thank you. We are indeed in a topsy-turvy political climate!

Expand full comment

It’s now Authoritarian vs Anti-authoritarian.

Expand full comment

As a traditional republican and conservative, at 70 I believe it's time to close the Aisle and abolish the Party system; taking George Washington's advice in his Farewell Address. No pensions or career building will go a long way to limiting terms while not imposing term limits. Making millionaires in political office is not acceptable, and the means by which to corrupt politicians achieve this needs to be prosecuted. This article is a little skewed, but gets the point across, we must end the endless wars, as clarioned by President Trump and RFK Jr alike. I think like Jennifer the tribal labels need to go with the Parties. "Neocon" too, is obsolete. Let's call them what hey are: pseudo-cons, and pseudo libs; Counterfeits; two wings of the same bird... Biden and company can make thier own choices, and blaming neocon pressure is bullshit. For Connor to go to Ukraine and fight is a choice driven by his beliefs eg, not political pressure. This has always been Joe Biden, back to my youth in Philly when he was in our news almost everyday. JFK was a social liberal and foreign policy hawk - not a Pseudo-. Bolton too, a FP hawk, unlike the Pseudos, differs from them in this: He is against the endless unwindable wars, and clearly stated last week; Biden needs to either go in to win, or withdraw support for Ukraine. In short, neoconservatism (likewise pseudoliberalism), has only superficial traits of true traditional conservatism or liberalism, which today is known as 'libertarian.' Not the Party per se, but in these regards in the spirit of Ron Paul, Donald Trump, and RFK Jr. Therefore to diminish the undue influence of the Military-Industrial Complex, we need to abolish the supportive mafia; the Cabal we call the (Two) Party System. (If you get rid of one party now, another will fill the void.) I'm envisioning perhaps a split ticket; eg, RFK Jr/Rand Paul; or Trump/Kennedy as a step toward dissolving this perverse Partisan political system the Father of Our Country so strongly warned us against, and take the steps to end enrichment and career-building at the expense of self-government. Recognize: The Democrat and Republican Parties exist to stay in Power. The Parties are NOT our Government, people. Rather, they supplant our self-government and are the Counterfeits destroying our Constitutional Democratic Republic.

Expand full comment

Hear hear!

You Sir are right on the target.

Expand full comment

Brilliant! Thank You.

Expand full comment

My personal opinion, whether wrong or right, is that the Primary Reason we lost JFK in a hail of assassins' bullets was his opposition to the creation & expansion of our war-making in Southeast Asia.

The plan was to move all the military equipment and hardware we had stockpiled for the planned invasion of Japan, (remember the fighting required to take Iwa Jima, a barren island and consider what we are talking about here,) was ear-marked and all the logistics, agreements, etc., signed sealed and delivered, the day we signed on Japan's surrender!

To object and stand against this long term plan, to throw an absolute road block in the war-makers' path, made him their utter enemy.

Who wants wars? The bankers want wars. And who did JFK actually threaten to pull their teeth also?

The "Federal Reserve," which is neither federal, nor a reserve. It is a consortium of private European banking dynasties who had been tossed out of America and wanted back in!

Who profits off of the fact that they mint our currency and then loan it to our government, at interest? THEY DO!

LOL. Laugh, or weep, it's insane, and puts us in chains, that's for certain.

And what else did John F. Kennedy do? He planned to put us back to a gold backed currency minted by the Federal Government, itself, as our Constitution demands.

Whoops! Who wanted him dead? The Bankers did. And the war-mongerers. They are the same perps.

Perhaps they utilized the pissed off Castro Crew, who were trained to take out Fidel to accomplish the task, but we all know who gave the orders.

And by the way, his security detail was largely called off, and his entire cabinet out of the country at the moment he died.

Now that makes things even more interesting, doesn't it??

The traitors within our own government must be recognized as well.

There are reasons that despite the law requiring the release of the Kennedy files, our presidents, all of them refuse to do so.

My opinion, again, whether right or wrong is that ALL of them, Democrat or Republican, are controlled by these same forces, today.

Catherine Austin Fitts has been telling us to ditch the Big Banks and put our money, and take out our loans at small, local credit unions and banks, for decades.

Now perhaps you may understand exactly how vital, and how powerful that advice truly is!

Expand full comment

The only issue I have with this piece is your statement that Joe Biden believes the burn pits are what led to Beau’s demise. Depending on the day and the audience, Beau’s death can be attributed to anything that Joe Biden deems appropriate for the occasion.

Expand full comment

So well said David!

"And yet they control the Biden administration’s foreign policy -- even though they should have been driven from public life in shame."

The . . . "neoconservative hawks. Or gung-ho interventionists" have murdered millions and keep going down their path of destruction. Right and Left same Clowns!

Expand full comment

Thank you.

The bastion of War party censorship, Google, just cancelled leading peace activist, Scott Ritter, without any explanation -- censorship justifications are no longer necessary.

Expand full comment

Make sure you tell Mr. Kennedy his flip-flop on the abortion issue on Sunday is really disappointing to me. This coming from a man who is highly educated, an attorney and tries to take the moral high ground. Once the pressure came from the Democratic power elite, he caved and supported the party line of abortion on demand at any point during pregnancy. Ending the life of a child, who is viable outside the womb, is morally reprehensible. He knows it, and should stand up and speak the truth.

Expand full comment

Yep, he completely mishandled the response and made that local reporter a hero of the extreme left. She was just waiting for the moment. While I was perplexed by that unfortunate episode, I am still firmly behind RFK j as appears to have the ability to admit he got it wrong in the way he responded but will clarify. We'll see!

Expand full comment

It's time that men stopped their relentless opining and law-making about women's bodies and women's choices. I'd like to think that perhaps RFK Jr realized that it wasn't his place. If I had to make the difficult choice to have or not to have an abortion (when I was younger) it wouldn't be anyone but me who carried the weight of that choice. I know plenty of women who have made that difficult choice under circumstances I wouldn't wish on anyone - and whichever choice they made wasn't easy. There's no black or white on this topic and men will never ever understand that.

Expand full comment
Aug 20, 2023·edited Aug 20, 2023

Somewhat true. Many men have daughters and while you absolutely are correct that woman bear the brunt of the situation, you assume that these men have zero emotional connection to what's a tragic emotional event for not only woman, but teenage girls and many cases the daughters they love and are required to protect. But you may believe it's the state's role not the parents. Additionally, men pay taxes. In my state we are forced to fund a medical procedure on any woman or girl that wants one. A procedure that does not align with their values. Are you suggesting that men can't opine on a process where their money is taken through the use of violence to provide to anyone? Do woman get to opine on the funding of the Ukraine war where MEN are being slaughtered because that infusion of capital from the Biden administration is denying them a shot at life? Are young Ukrainian men given a choice to get their heads blown off because WOMAN like Victoria Nuland, Fiona Hill, Hillary Clinton, Ursula Von and all the rest get to weigh in. YOU think ONLY woman have tragedy to confront. For me life begins at conception, but also believe woman should have legal access to the procedure because you're correct, the woman (not men) bears the weight. What we never hear is a little bit of imagination. In Texas 70% of abortions are performed on black woman. Why would anyone support that. If conservatives are constantly screaming about family values, then give these women a level a support. First tell them that they are loved, then establish a mechanism to provide them the funds where they can have financial stability and they and their child will thrive. But the left hates any suggestion of that type of support. They call is slavery! Yes, children ensalve their mothers. As far as the argument coming out of the extreme left, their (not the woman the political class) disregard for life is so disturbing I can't think of a response. We can do both in our country, provide an option for woman and also be a culture that values life. It is WHITE progressive new age Karens that are driving these conversations. Unlike black woman in Texas they will never, never be confronted with that heart breaking choice.

Expand full comment

We can do both. That’s where we find common ground (you and I). Without access to adequate healthcare, decent food, childcare, emotional & mental support systems, raising a child alone is often a recipe for neglect or worse. In my opinion it’s criminal to force women without resources to birth babies and be expected to care for them. I have 3 adult children. When they were growing up, I had a partner and sufficient financial resources to care for, educate, and provide enriching opportunities for them. It was still an enormous amount of work and often very stressful. To expect anyone to take on that responsibility without sufficient resources is cruel and dangerous for mothers and children - yet what options do we leave without access to abortion? We must first fix the social safety net before mandating that people do the impossible.

Expand full comment
Aug 23, 2023·edited Aug 23, 2023

What's criminal is not providing woman and these children all the options that are out there. There are many organizations that will stand with these women and their child. But like RFKj, they are considered fringe and extremists. It is our countries lack imagination and disregard for life no matter how small that is disturbing. Men are considered a cheap commodity whose lives are no longer valued. That's why Victoria Nuland and that bunch are fine denying them a chance at life forcing young men many still children to the Russian front. "Is it time WOMAN stopped their relentless opining and law-making about Mens bodies and Mens choices"? I know your hearts in the right place but we all should try just to give a little bit. I've been voting for 50 years and abortion and gay marriage continue to dominate. These two issues remain redlines but they're getting exhausting.

Expand full comment

This feels like a tangential rant. You’re welcome to it but last time I checked I wasn’t opining about men nor did I suggest anything about regulating men’s bodies or choices.

It would be nice if a young pregnant teenage girl felt like she had options, and that there was a social safety net that would allow her to raise a child in a safe, healthy and supportive environment. I’ve yet to see that happen. When I was young my mother regularly “hired”pregnant teens to be our live in nannies. She treated them like second class citizens because they were pregnant and felt herself superior - like she was doing them a great service. Our home was a physically safe environment for sure, but they were essentially emotionally abused. It’s a tricky thing to provide support for someone in a touchy situation without putting yourself above them.

Expand full comment

Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one escalating the Vietnam War...as the Intl Central Banker Family Mafia ORDERED in their never ending 'WARS FOR PROFIT' the British Military used to be the Pit Bully of the world for. The Bush, OBastards and Killary SET THE WORLD ON FIRE THROUGHOUT ALL THEIR ADMINISTRATIONS, HUH? AS ORDERED BY THE ROTHSCHILDS?

DNC WAS ALWAYS WAS A PARTY OF WAR HAWKS WHEN ONE CHECKS THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

Agents of 'Deep State' trained by Rhodes in Oxford were merely VERY ADEPT WITH HIDING THE FACTS AT THE TIME.

Don't feel bad...The Republicans are the same.

Expand full comment

Bolton is a dyed in the wool, blow-hard neo-con republican, with no connection whatever to the Biden Administration. Just because he's a media critic of Trump, to the best of my knowledge, that hasn't rehabilitated him with the Democrats at all.

Expand full comment

So WHY is RFK j running as a democrat? Those of us that are firmly behind RFK j, are campaigning for him, raising money but can't stand the democratic hate club are finding ourselves in this awful situation of potentially having to join the club that makes us sick to our stomachs. They are irredeemable. So, who are these democrats that are supporting Robert? Are they the bunch that encouraged the mob and now that they've come for them, they cry for help? Are they the same bunch that called people like me bigots and fascist? Are we to believe that this is the coalition to victory made up of confused liberals? Maybe it is. I will work tirelessly to give RFK j a real shot to be POTUS. But we need to hear from the campaign the truth relative to what is the path to victory via the dem primary. Unlike democrats who in most cases would prefer to stick a hot poker up their noses before voting for any Republican there are viable choices in the GOP primary that we can get behind. But if RFK j stated tonight that he looked at the math and concluded that the democratic machine made up of an evil bunch of quasi-fascists warmongers would be a tragic mistake to run with and declared that he will now run as an independent, I believe many in the country would stand with him. I know I would.

Expand full comment

I have a lot of respect for David Talbot. His book "Brothers" is one of the finest IMO about the Kennedy assassination. But people of the the inner circle of this RFK Jr. campaign are WRONG about the Ukraine-Russia war. And people of the solid Radical Left like Bernie Sanders are RIGHT about it, even if it means support for the Biden administration on this grave issue. And here following is another example of democratic socialist support for the just war against Fascist Russia:

Reject the Left-Right Alliance Against Ukraine

If American leftists take seriously their commitment to self-rule and loathing of foreign aggression, they should shed their ambivalence about supporting Ukraine.

Michael Kazin ▪ March 7, 2023

The “Rage Against the War Machine” rally on February 19, 2023 (Pamela Drew/Flickr)

At critical times, foreign wars have tested the moral convictions of American leftists and affected the fate of their movement for years to come. The Socialist Party’s opposition to entering the First World War provoked furious state repression but later gained a measure of redemption when Americans learned that U.S. troops had not made the world safe for democracy after all. Leftists proved prescient again in the late 1930s when they rallied to defend the Spanish Republic against a right-wing military and its fascist allies, Italy and Germany. The republic’s defeat emboldened Adolf Hitler to launch what quickly became the Second World War. When, twenty years later, American Communists backed the Soviet Union’s crushing of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, they shoved their party firmly and irrevocably to the margins of political life, which opened up space for the emergence of a New Left that rejected imperial aggressors of all ideological persuasions.

The war in Ukraine has a good chance of turning into another such decisive event. Who to blame for the bloodshed in that country should be obvious: a massive nation led by an authoritarian ruler with one of the world’s largest militaries at his disposal is seeking to conquer and subjugate a smaller and weaker neighbor. In pursuit of that vicious purpose, Vladimir Putin’s soldiers have committed countless rapes and acts of torture. His air force is systematically trying to destroy Ukraine’s infrastructure and economy, hoping to undermine its citizens’ will to resist. Yet Ukrainians, with the aid of arms from the United States and other NATO countries, have so far managed to fight this superior force to a stalemate.

A sizeable number of American leftists have embraced an alternate reality. For them, the culprit is NATO’s post–Cold War expansion, fueled by the drive of the U.S. state and capital to bend the world to their desires. The popular author and journalist Chris Hedges cracks that the war in Ukraine “doesn’t make any geopolitical sense, but it’s good for business.” The Green Party condemns the “perpetual war mentality” of the “US foreign policy establishment” and concludes, “There are no good guys in this crisis.”

These critics ignore or dismiss the fact that every nation that joined NATO did so willingly, knowing that Russia was capable of launching the kind of attack now underway in Ukraine. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s demise, the expansion of NATO may well have been too hasty. But not one of its newer members has done anything to threaten Putin’s regime. And every country that joined the alliance enjoys a democratically elected government. They contrast sharply with the handful of nations, besides Putin’s, that voted against a UN resolution last month demanding the Russians withdraw from Ukraine: Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Nicaragua, Eritrea, and Mali. All but the last are one-party dictatorships, and Mali relies on Russian mercenaries to battle Islamist rebels.

It seems not to bother these leftists that they are making common cause with some of the most atrocious and prominent stalwarts of the Trumpian right. Tucker Carlson routinely bashes the U.S. commitment to Ukraine with lines like “Has Putin ever called me a racist?” while Marjorie Taylor Greene recently declared, “I’m completely against the war in Ukraine. . . . You know who’s driving it? It’s America. America needs to stop pushing the war in Ukraine.”

On February 19, some members of the alliance of right and left staged a demonstration at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington to vent its “Rage Against the War Machine.” Speakers included Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard as well as Jill Stein, the Green Party’s 2016 nominee for president. Carlson promoted the event on the highest rated “news” show in the history of cable TV. At the Memorial, several protesters flew Russian flags.

To paraphrase August Bebel’s famous line about anti-Semitism, the hostility of those leftists who oppose helping Ukraine is an anti-imperialism of fools—although, unlike past Jew haters, they are fools with good intentions. Wars are always horrible events, no matter who starts them or why. And we on the left should do whatever we can to stop them from starting and end them when they do.

But neither the United States nor its allies forced Putin to invade. In speech after speech, he has made clear his mourning for the loss of the Soviet empire and his firm belief that Ukraine should be part of a revived one, this time sanctified by an Orthodox cross instead of the hammer-and-sickle. As the historian (and my cousin) David A. Bell wrote recently, the United States is not “the only international actor that really matters in the current crisis.” It may have the mightiest war machine, but Biden is not shipping arms to Ukraine in an attempt to subjugate Russia to his will. We should, Bell writes, “judge every international situation on its own terms, considering the actions of all parties, and not just the most powerful one. . . . the horrors Putin has already inflicted on Ukraine, and his long-term goals, are strong reasons . . . for continuing current U.S. policy, despite the attendant costs and risks.”

The monetary cost is obviously not small. By the end of January, the United States had spent $46.6 billion on lethal aid to Ukraine. But as a portion of what our bloated military has available to it every year, that sum is little more than a rounding error. The defense budget in the past fiscal year was close to $2 trillion. The cost of the latest U.S. aircraft carrier ran to $13 billion all by itself. The Navy now has eleven aircraft carriers. Isn’t helping Ukraine defend its right to exist as an independent country a worthier expense?

The debate over the war among American leftists could have an impact on whether the United States keeps sending substantial aid to Ukraine’s armed forces. Progressives wield more influence in the Democratic Party than they have in decades. So far, most have followed the lead of Bernie Sanders in denouncing the Russian onslaught and endorsing the NATO effort to repel it. More Republicans oppose aiding Ukraine than Democrats. But if that changes, public backing for U.S. policy, already slipping after a year of inconclusive fighting, could crumble entirely. A negotiated settlement may be the only way the war ends. But without a strong and consistent policy of support to the government in Kyiv, the agreement would be on Putin’s terms.

One doesn’t have to think the stakes of the conflict in Ukraine are similar to those in the Spanish Civil War to hear echoes from that benighted past. If American leftists take seriously their commitment to self-rule and loathing of foreign aggression, they should shed their ambivalence about supporting Ukraine. But I’ll let a democratic socialist from Ukraine have the last words. “I know that the left tends to look for a nefarious U.S. plot behind everything,” writes the sociologist Alona Liasheva. “Of course, I think it’s important to analyze every conflict to understand all the players, the dynamics, and who’s culpable.” But “In the case of Ukraine, it’s far simpler than many on the left think. Ukraine was attacked by an imperialist army, and as a result we are in a struggle to defend our lives and our very right to exist as a sovereign nation. . . . This is not an abstract question for us. The international left can make a material difference in whether we are able to win or lose.”

Michael Kazin is co-editor emeritus of Dissent. His most recent book, What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party, just came out in paperback.

Correction: an earlier version of this article stated that Medea Benjamin spoke at the Rage Against the War Machine rally. She was scheduled to speak but canceled her talk at the request of Code Pink.

Read Next

Expand full comment

What utter garbage!

Expand full comment

Let's not put all the blame on the Neocons. All the democrat politicians are just as bad.

Expand full comment

No argument here. The democratic club is now the party of war.

Expand full comment

This article is timely , balanced, and brilliant. Apart from RFK (was has now flipped his previous Cspan endorsement for the Ukrainian war) just as he has for Climate Change hysteria, the DemonRats are absolutely insane. The laundry list of what has happened in the current regime, (tolerated and perpetuated by the constituents) is terrifying. I can think of no redeeming virtue though actively invite other evidence.

RepubliCons are arguably worse, though there exist many notable exceptions. Looks like both parties are self destructing...

Expand full comment

Oh, I see it says son Conor not grandson. How is it he is part of the Ukrainian military?

Expand full comment

Kennedy’s grandson is fighting in Ukraine? I would like more details on this please. Is he part of the US military?

Expand full comment

He fought for the french foreign legion

Expand full comment

Thank you.

Expand full comment