Donkeys Nattering in Chicago

Many countries pretend to have democracy; even states like Russia and China claim to be democracies. The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. People justifiably snicker at these claims and recognize that their performative parliaments are theatric shows meant to give the ruling class legitimacy. It remains surprising that people don’t perceive the United States (or any Western state) in the same light. The Biden administration’s approval rating hovers around 36 percent. The Supreme Court has a 25 or 30 percent approval rating. Congress, almost in the single digits, has a 19 percent approval rating. Simply on the most elementary grounds, democracy is a majority rule-based system, so these numbers should call the claims of being a democracy into question. This is before we add other factors, like the formation of two private political parties whose leaders stifle internal dissent and have disproportionate influence internally over their parties’ primary election process. Or the Electoral College, which dilutes the value of an individual vote. Or the overwhelming influence of money, which is very narrowly concentrated among business elites. The Supreme Court famously ruled that lobbying—the act of paying politicians to draft certain kinds of legislation—is a form of free speech; and thus lobbying is protected by the First Amendment. Meaning, that “free speech” can be quantified, and some have more of it than most. Aristotle, in his book Politics, observed that wealth inequality and democracy are in conflict with each other. Since, in a true democracy, the majority of the poor will use their democratic power to create a more equal distribution of a nation’s wealth. It is thus a warning sign for democracy that in the US, the bottom eighty percent owns merely fifteen percent of all the wealth that’s produced—while those at the top get the biggest cut of the money produced by the workers’ labor. If wealth was equally distributed amongst citizens, the average American would be six times richer. There is not a country in the world where the bottom eighty percent collectively owns more money than the richest five percent. I would argue that no country in the world is truly democratic. The way the United States was structured when it was founded certainly wasn’t democratic. The Founding Fathers structured the government so as to limit the threat of democracy. James Madison read Aristotle’s work explaining that property rights in a democracy are threatened by inequality but disagreed with Aristotle’s conclusion that poverty should be eliminated. Instead, he argued that the government “ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” Nevertheless, the US political system has a kind of democratic fringe to it, and I’m not under any illusions about the threat that Donald Trump and the Republicans pose to that system. One of the most important issues we face is climate change. Its importance cannot be exaggerated, but virtually the entire Republican party denies that the problem even exists. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was established in 1945 at the start of the Nuclear Age, their mission was to warn humanity how close it came to terminal nuclear war, and thus species destruction. They created the now-famous “doomsday clock.” When the hands reached midnight it would mean the ignoble end of our species. In 2007 they added climate change to the doomsday clock’s metrics, which is part of the reason the clock sits at “ninety seconds to midnight” today. “The world already risks exceeding a goal of the Paris climate agreement—a temperature increase of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—because of insufficient commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and insufficient implementation of commitments already made,” they wrote. “In short, current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are grossly insufficient to avoid dangerous human and economic impacts from climate change, […] the toll of human suffering from climate change disruption will inexorably mount.” This is the reason that Professor Noam Chomsky called the Republican Party “The most dangerous organization in human history.” Which he acknowledges is an “outrageous statement, but the question is whether it’s true. I mean, has there ever been an organization in human history that is dedicated with such commitment to the destruction of organized human life on Earth?” he asked. “Not that I’m aware of.” The Earth is currently heating up faster than the worst-case scenarios of some models predicted. “I am more worried than ever,” said one climate scientist at Brown University, observing this years heatwave. So I agree with Professor Chomsky, I believe the Republican party is the most dangerous organization in human history. If Trump wins the election, he will seek to destroy whatever parts of the government that are beneficial to human beings. I mention this clearly since any critique of the Democrats has been effectively stifled by simply pointing to Donald Trump. When anti-genocide protesters organized a campaign to vote “uncommitted” in the uncontested primary, to imply they might not vote in November if Biden continued arming Israel, the governor of Michigan—where over 100,000 people voted “uncommitted”—responded by saying, “It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that any vote that’s not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term. A second Trump term would be devastating, not just on fundamental rights, not just on our democracy here at home, but also when it comes to foreign policy. This was a man who promoted a Muslim ban.” She was by no means alone; Senator John Fetterman warned that “criticizing the president publicly” meant that “you might as well just get your MAGA hat.” When Jimmy Fallon asked Hillary Clinton what she would “say to voters who are upset that [Biden and Trump] are the two choices?” She replied, “Get over yourself, those are the two choices.” One tweet from a Democratic activist read: “If you voted ‘uncommitted’ in Michigan instead of voting for Biden, you’re a Trump-supporting terrorist.” Therefore, while I am about to criticize the Democrats, I make my (already obvious) opposition and disgust of the Republican Party unquestionably clear, so you can put it in your pipe and smoke it. I probably despise the Republicans more than most zealous Democrats. But no political party is beyond criticism, and those who imply otherwise should be called what they are: Fascists. The single most important issue in this election is the US-Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza (see “Blood and Soil”). Regardless of how much Democrats and the media want to focus on polls that indicate the most important issues to voters are inflation, healthcare, housing, and gun violence, nothing matters more than ending the American-backed genocide. That remains true whether American voters agree with that or not. Fortunately for us, a ceasefire has overwhelming support among the American people. Unfortunately, however, Kamala Harris doesn’t seem to want to make use of that popularity. A majority of Democrats (83%), Independents (78%), and Republicans (63%) all support a permanent ceasefire. Furthermore, a majority of Democratic voters believe the term “genocide” applies to Israel’s actions. If Harris were to announce her support for an arms embargo, it would make her even more popular. Obama won the presidency in 2008 because he ran against the Iraq war—although his criticism was mealymouthed and exaggerated by media pundits, he was the sole candidate promising peace. While his opponent John McCain sang his personal parody of the Beach Boys’ song “Barbara Ann” at one of his rallies, replacing the lyrics with “Bomb Iran.” Donald Trump similarly ran on an anti-war campaign in 2016 versus Hillary Clinton, a notorious hawk. Biden promised to end the war in Afghanistan in 2020 and pledged to end “forever wars” as well as limit US intervention abroad. Incidentally, all of these Presidents broke their pledges. To mention some examples: when Obama was handed a Nobel Peace Prize for calling what Bush had started a “dumb war” on the campaign trail, he proclaimed in his acceptance speech that “negotiations cannot convince Al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms,” and concluded that he was going to be a wartime president without even one attempt at peace. Trump dramatically expanded the drone program even further than Obama had done. A program that officially, legally speaking, targets civilians—since none of the people targeted were ever convicted. And Biden strengthened NATO after getting enthusiastically embroiled in a proxy war with Russia and provided Israel with the weapons and diplomatic cover to carry out their ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. All of these men, or perhaps their campaign managers, understood, however, that campaigning on a pro-peace message is popular. Kamala Harris, however, is seemingly unwilling to capitalize on the popularity of peace. When she was confronted by anti-genocide protesters at a rally earlier this month, she told them, “You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win, then say that otherwise I’m speaking,” before giving the protesters a scornful look. Harris’ campaign is using her record as a former prosecutor to contrast with Donald Trump’s status as a convicted felon. This also provides her with a rhetorical gift regarding Israel. Continuing arms transfers is not just a violation of international law, but also US law. Specifically, the Leahy law, which prohibits arms transfers to military units credibly accused of human rights violations. Even the New York Times with their biased one-sided coverage of Israel, ran an op-ed piece urging the Biden administration to enforce the Leahy law. Some beguiling Zionists tried claiming the Leahy law doesn’t apply to Israel because the US doesn’t directly arm specific military units, rather, the US supplies Israel weaponry in bulk by facilitating deals with “private” US armament manufacturers. Thus, they claim, the US government is not funding specific human-rights-violating IDF units, therefore the Leahy law doesn’t apply. But last May, former Senator Patrick Leahy, the man who wrote the law, put all this to bed when he wrote an article in the Washington Post titled: “I created the Leahy law. It should be applied to Israel.” “Though the Leahy law applies the same requirements to every country, it has not always been equally enforced,” he wrote. “Israel, among the largest recipients of US military aid, is a glaring example.” He added that the State Department’s insistence that Israel and US policymakers adhered to the Leahy law “not only beggars credulity; it also makes a mockery of the law.” To me, when people claim Harris can’t take a “tough stance” on Israel because it would jeopardize her election chances, it rings like a hollow excuse or an attempt to cope with her inaction. The seemingly complete unwillingness to give us so much as a crumb on this issue is alarming. Rather than acknowledging the pain many people are feeling, the Democrats are closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears while pretending Gaza doesn’t exist. When Biden was still on the campaign trail earlier this year, his campaign managers felt the need to stop announcing his public appearances, because he would get confronted by protesters. Even after they made his calendar private (astonishingly, for a so-called Democrat, running a sub-rosa  campaign to hide from your own constituents is yet another absurd sign of how limited this “democracy” really is) Biden continued to get protested wherever he was spotted. On the first night of the Democratic National Convention, investigative journalist Ryan Grim reported that DNC security searched the bag of Esam Boraey, a delegate from Connecticut: “A security guard found a Palestinian flag,” Grim writes, “and forced him to leave the floor with it.” “Immediately supervisors were called on me,” Boraey said, “and then the supervisor called four DNC members who rushed in and cornered me. They held my bag all the time and refused to give my bag back until I left the floor.” Later, when Joe Biden took the stage, several DNC members unveiled a cloth banner that read “Stop Arming Israel.” What happened next was filmed from several angles, including by Ryan Grim, who wrote in his article: “I was a few feet away when the banner went up and witnessed a surreal scene, as delegates around them tried to block [the banner] with “We [heart] Joe” and “USA” signs. Some delegates tried to rip the banner away from the protesting DNC members, but they held on tight as others intervened, urging the crowd to raise their signs as high as possible but not to cause a violent scene. Several of them began using signs to block my camera […] One delegate followed me through the crowd relentlessly—with frankly impressive determination—putting his “USA” sign in front of my phone as I worked to avoid him.” While the Harris campaign invited the family of a Hamas-held hostage, no such courtesy was extended to a Palestinian American. The uncommitted delegates and pro-Palestinian activists wanted the Democrats to allow a Palestinian Democrat to speak at the convention. They proposed Georgia State Representative Ruwa Romman, and after weeks of negotiating the Harris campaign refused to let her speak. Romman rightfully called it “a slap in the face.” Mother Jones published the speech she proposed to give, which was very mild and inoffensive. Here is an excerpt: Let’s commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur. Let’s fight for the policies long overdue—from restoring access to abortions to ensuring a living wage, to demanding an end to reckless war and a ceasefire in Gaza. To those who doubt us, to the cynics and the naysayers, I say, yes we can—yes we can be a Democratic Party that prioritizes funding our schools and hospitals, not for endless wars. That fights for an America that belongs to all of us—Black, brown, and white, Jews and Palestinians, all of us If anything, allowing her to speak would have helped Harris distance herself from the stink of the Biden administration and present a truly inclusive message. Despite it being quite a banal statement, it would have been the crumb many progressive voters were looking for, to show that she is willing to carve a different path than “Genocide Joe,” and not be remembered as “Holocaust Harris.” Instead, the calculation the Democrats seem to be making is that voters will have no choice but to vote for them, and they can therefore continue this genocide without any consequence. Michelle Obama also expressed that sentiment clearly in her speech on Tuesday, there is “no other choice,” she said. Shouldn’t there be another choice in a democracy? Using Trump to threaten voters into not demanding you to act on the wishes of the majority (and do the right thing) is inherently anti- democratic. They’re holding human rights, such as abortion, hostage. If you do not acquiesce to some of our more unpopular policies, such as our Israel policy, and show unwavering party loyalty, Donald Trump will take away the last remaining privileges you have—no more worker’s, women’s, or gay rights. A far more Democratic system would involve some method of controlling how our tax dollars are spent. If individuals could choose where their legally mandatory tax- collected money goes, they could choose to withhold it from the military for example. It would give citizens leverage to affect policy. Unfortunately, no one has a say in what the United States government does or spends money on—you know, like a democracy. The tragic part is that if they wanted to, this is the election where they could criticize Israel more than at any other time. For precisely the same reason they can keep supporting them: if you have a problem with sanctioning Israel (as opposed to supporting them), then Donald Trump will take your rights away—that threat cuts both ways. It’s not democratic, but it’d be moral. We’ve heard a lot about values these past four days. One golden tip to remember to hone your political senses: whenever politicians start talking about values, put your hand on your wallet and pay close attention. If you want to see the worth of their values, look at Gaza. Look at the suffering of those people, there is plenty of footage. Their values are empty. American elections are in essence a façade. They are run by the same advertising industry that sells cars and sneakers—and they’re very good at it. It’s hard to see through the optimistic red-white-and-blue pageantry. And, to be fair, this year’s convention was (for the most part) excellent political theatre with some genuinely positive messages. There was a lot of talk about “corporate greed,” unionization, and workers’ rights—which is all to the good. Tim Walz, in his Wednesday speech, even called healthcare and housing a “human right,” something I have longed to hear out of a politician’s mouth, but not expected. It’s certainly an incredibly positive sign that the tireless effort of progressive activists is moving the country further left. However, there are still ominous signs which should keep us all sober. Climate change is a good example. On Tuesday, Obama touted the Democrats’ commitment to “defending the planet from climate change.” Joe Biden also does deserve some credit for putting forth the most aggressive climate legislation in US history. But, while these measures would have been effective in the ‘90s, the problem has already grown to such proportions that today, it’s woefully inadequate. Furthermore, the Biden administration still auctioned off almost eighty million acres of federally owned water rights in the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling, and Democrats (as well as Republicans, of course) still pay ever-increasing billions of dollars of taxpayer money in federal subsidies to the oil industry—which makes over $2 billion dollars in pure profit every day. Overall, the industry is worth many trillions of dollars. The US spent $760 billion dollars, over three times the amount it spends on the Department of Education, in subsidies for the industry in 2022 (China being the only country to give more tax subsidy to the fossil fuel industry than the US). To put that amount into perspective, a million seconds is twelve days, a billion seconds is thirty-one years, and a trillion seconds is 31,688 years. The United States is the single largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world, you could in fact say the US is the Saudi Arabia of oil and gas… huh. But thanks Democrats for “defending the planet from climate change.” Another worrying sign is the party’s rhetoric and record on immigration. It’s no secret that immigration is Trump’s strongest issue and one of Democrats’ weakest. This is most curious, given the fact that there is no “migrant crisis” nor, as Fox News  coverage suggests, is there a migrant “crime wave”—something Trump dubbed “bigrant crime” (a portmanteau of Biden and migrant), because he alleges Biden has an “open borders” policy. For as much time as Democrats spend raking Trump over the coal for his often hilariously absurd lies, the Democrats’ response in this case is most interesting: rather than debunking and running against his talking points, they are agreeing with his lies. As a result, when polled, 44 percent of Democratic voters say immigration from the US-Mexico border is a “major problem.” Other polling shows that voters who are concerned with immigration are more likely to vote for Trump. There is a crisis on the border, but it affects immigrants. Because of extreme heat and draconian border policies that force migrants and asylum seekers to cross through more remote regions, migrant deaths are surging. Border Patrol agents frequently arrest aid workers trying to prevent these deaths, and purposefully deny immigrants water. Furthermore, in Texas, self-described “pro-life” Governor Gregg Abbott ordered the construction of razor wire traps in the Rio Grande—one of the most dangerous passageways migrants have to navigate—to kill and maim them. Texas Border Patrol is actively trying to increase deaths, they have been ordered to push people, even those suffering from exhaustion or heatstroke, into the river. Once, according to one Border Patrol agent, a four-year-old girl attempted to cross the wire on the river bank “and was pressed back by Texas Guard soldiers due to orders given to them.” She eventually passed out from heat exhaustion. A 19-year- old pregnant girl miscarried after being caught in a razor wire trap, and another pregnant woman drowned. I guess their "pro-life" ideology has its limits. I have heard little to no outrage over this from Democrats. Biden has certainly not made countering Greg Abbott’s wanton cruelty a priority. (Amusingly, Greg Abbott’s legs were paralyzed after a tree fell on him, and someone once said he now hates trees because of it. I share this with you to cheer you up.) Instead, the Democrats have pivoted sharply to the right on immigration. Under Biden and Chuck Schumer’s stewardship, the Democrats proposed an ultra- restrictive border legislation that included the construction of Trump’s border wall. Yes, after years of Democrats calling Trump’s plan offensive, xenophobic, useless, costly, and environmentally damaging, going so far as to shut down the government in 2019 due to their refusal to fund the construction of Trump’s racist wall, the Democrats are trying to build that wall. Chuck Schumer even went on TV to repeat the same dreck Fox News broadcasts daily. He stressed the importance of “securing our borders,” while other MSNBC  hosts, on what is ostensibly a liberal network, referred to immigrants crossing the border as an “invasion.” Can you imagine the perverse delight conservatives must be feeling? In the end, the only thing that saved us were the obstructionist Republicans who didn’t want to hand a “win” to the Biden administration. Albeit for the wrong reasons, we should all be enormously grateful to the ultra-right Republicans for saving us from this bill. Just like they saved Social Security during the Obama administration, when the Democrats were prepared to destroy it, Republicans chose obstruction over getting the exact legislation they wanted to pass for years. To the benefit of us all. The Harris campaign has been running ads touting her support for the “tough” border policy, as did Obama in his DNC speech, citing her record as a tough-on- crime prosecutor, and promising she would crack down on fentanyl smuggling. It is a lie that fentanyl smuggling is due to migrants; only 0.02 percent of fentanyl smugglers are immigrants, and the majority are US citizens—because most of them can cross the border without being searched. And if politicians genuinely wanted to stop unsafe drugs flowing across the border, the obvious answer is to legalize and regulate the market. The so-called “war on drugs” has always been a war on people, specifically, specific people. While it’s true the Democrats still take a more liberal and tolerant attitude towards immigration (not hard when the Republicans plan to deport over twenty million people, which would be one of the largest deportation operations in world history, that would require, logistically speaking, the construction of camps), keep in mind that Ronald Reagan’s immigration policy and rhetoric was more liberal than the Democratic Party’s position today—that is how far we’ve fallen into this militarized, conservative snake-pit. So, why are Democrats doing this? There are three possible reasons I can think of, but none of them are mutually exclusive. Number one: They believe that by agreeing with Fox News propaganda they are “disarming” the Republicans. By showing Republican voters that they are just as capable and willing to stop the imaginative crime wave of the invading hordes. They also hope to show that Republicans prefer obstructing and playing politics more than keeping this country safe. I am more anti-immigrant than thou is essentially the pitch (only slightly undercut by their bipolar campaign messages themed around loving and treating immigrants with humanity). Of course, strengthening and legitimizing Trump’s main talking points is stupid. Very stupid. Number two: Xenophobia. Maybe the Democrats just don’t like them. Even though immigrants commit far fewer crimes on average, one crime committed by a migrant, or by “an illegal” as Biden phrased it when he talked about a crime committed by one undocumented immigrant, gets far more publicity than crimes committed by European-Americans. Even less ink is dedicated to crimes committed by cops, even though, in some counties, cops kill more people than drug gangs. And number three: Class War. Voltaire once said, “The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.” For years, companies have lobbied for harsher immigration policies, because, to suppress wages, you need a permanent underclass. Undocumented immigrants have no power, making them ripe for exploitation. Vast sectors of the American economy rely on undocumented labor, perhaps most extensively in the farming industry. Back-breaking labor in the scorching heat while being sprayed with toxic pesticides should entitle you to a hefty salary. But when these workers complain, their bosses call Immigration and Customs Enforcement and simply deport them back to whatever miserable place they fled or abandoned. This also happens when they get injured on the job or report their employer for sexual assault. Undocumented labor is a lucrative pool of desperate and exploitable people. When American workers try to get a job in these sectors, they have to accept poverty wages because if they don’t, someone else without options will be forced to do the work instead.  Private companies are by far the biggest reason there is so much immigration—any politician interested, not in exploiting these people for cheap labor, but in actually stopping immigration, would target the businesses exploiting these folks. Do you see anyone doing that? In the 1990s, one big selling point of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for big corporations was that it would virtually destroy Mexico’s economy. A lot of pundits claimed that NAFTA was either beneficial to Mexico or that America had Mexico’s best interests at heart. But, before NAFTA became law, the Clinton administration militarized the southern border, because they knew many Mexican farmers would have little choice but to try and build a life in the US. Ultimately, NAFTA would wreak such destruction on Mexican farmers, that much of the country went hungry. Food poverty levels and the amount of malnourished children skyrocketed drastically. On Wall Street, NAFTA was seen as a huge success. The NAFTA example, what the US did to its second-largest trading partner, is a mild one compared with the countries we ravaged with violence and war, democracies we overthrew and installed a regime of torturers and Western bankers in. This is class war, and it is depressingly effective. Immigrants are not to blame for taking anyone’s job. They, like everyone, are being exploited as laborers for big-money capital interests. People should put their anger where it belongs. Exploiting workers is one of the few bipartisan efforts remaining. The other one is killing people in foreign countries. There are other reasons to be skeptical about the DNC’s colorful fanfare. Take abortion, it is the winning issue for Democrats, and they’ve done an excellent job of centering and highlighting the harm done by banning reproductive healthcare. Night one of the convention included testimonials from women, one of whom almost died after doctors were legally forbidden from aborting her already non- viable pregnancy; another woman recounted having gotten an abortion after being raped by her father-in-law when she was a child and made the point that children today, in many states, will no longer have that option. Kamala Harris, and Biden before her when he was still running, promised to “restore Roe v. Wade” and “defend” abortion rights. A litany of Democrats who took to the stage kept repeating that promise: elect Kamala Harris and she will defend abortion rights. This message is only slightly undercut by the fact they are in power now. So far, they have done nothing to defend abortion rights. In fact, for years Democrats refused to codify Roe v. Wade into law because they didn’t want to expend their political capital. Obama reneged on his campaign promise to enshrine abortion access into federal law. And when Trump got into office, Democrats could have done multiple things to prevent Trump from filling the court with conservative extremists, there is plenty of precedent for this in congressional history. Even now, Democrats in Congress could take steps to limit the harm the Supreme Court can do; the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the court. Furthermore, Biden has refused to use his executive authority to protect abortion access. One such way would be to allow abortion clinics to operate on federal land, like on military bases. They could even issue federal pardons to patients, just in case, to prevent any future president from retroactively prosecuting them. They could also make it easier to access abortion pills or help people who are unable to travel to blue states and enable them to do so—they have refused to do any of that. I can think of two reasons for this. One: the same reason Republicans don’t want to enact the border legislation they desire—Democrats want abortion restricted so they can campaign on it. Or two: they are simply insincere with respect to abortion. Either way, I find it quite repugnant. In her acceptance speech, Kamala Harris mostly steered clear of her better policy positions. Instead, she treated the audience to some platitudes, like when she vowed to fix the “housing crisis.” To be clear, there is no housing crisis. There are more vacant properties than homeless people, the way to solve homelessness is to give them houses. Although, it would mean removing the profit-making housing structure, which won’t happen. Instead, we can expect the “better kind of politics” that Pete Buttigieg mentioned in his speech, to look like what Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is doing in Los Angeles—outlawing sleeping in public spaces and ordering police to remove homeless encampments. As a direct result of these policies, on average, more than six homeless people die in Los Angeles every day. The realities and results of US foreign and domestic policy stand in shameful contrast with the “descent, open, and brave” politics that Buttigieg described. Anatole France once wrote, “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” The Democratic party won’t save us. They are the liberal wing of the capitalist party. The plans laid out in the coruscant convention hall if at all enacted, would bring the United States in line with other developed nations—which is all to the good, to be sure. That is what American citizens desperately need and deserve, but let’s not grovel at the generosity of politicians who promise the bare minimum. Out of all OECD nations, the United States has the greatest income inequality, the second highest poverty rate, the highest healthcare costs and also the most people without healthcare, the highest infant mortality rate, the highest anti-depressant use, the shortest life expectancy at birth, the highest carbon emissions, one of the worst gender inequality rates, the highest military spending, the most arms sales, and the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. The United States even imprisons people for non-violent crimes. And Harris’ campaign seems to be hailing her tough-on-crime approach as something positive. Even though, her record as a prosecutor is not encouraging. Having gone relatively easy on corporations and white-collar crime—which is far more damaging to society than blue-collar crime, which is what Americans have been conditioned into thinking of when they hear the word crime—in contrast to the destitute, whom she treated with an iron fist. Lara Bazelon, a law professor specializing in wrongful convictions, once wrote that while she was a prosecutor, “Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony, and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.” What worried me the most, by far, was Kamala Harris’ speech on Thursday. After the boring pablum about values, she dedicated herself to expanding the American empire abroad. “[I will defend] our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists,” she said. “I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-Un, who are rooting for Trump. […] Because they know he’s easy to manipulate.” Whatever your opinion of Donald Trump is, and I made it clear he’s not my favorite person, he was the only American politician with the correct instinct on how to handle North Korea. Instead of building up military force to threaten them, impose harsh sanctions that worsen the lives of ordinary North Korean citizens, and engage in provocative military drills on their border, Trump wanted to let North and South Korea work towards denuclearization without US State Department interference (to “defend” America’s “interests”). He was even prepared to limit the provocative military exercises on their border. Naturally, Trump bungled it, caring more about the fanfare than the policy, and facing very stiff opposition from his hawkish cabinet. There is only one thing Donald Trump ever said that I agree with, when he was asked during his 2016 campaign about Putin being a killer, he responded “There are a lot of killers. What, do you think our country is so innocent?” It was a refreshing moment of honesty from a politician, never mind from Donald Trump. Of course, Trump’s actions were to expand American terror abroad. Just like Biden made clear in his Monday-night speech, the United States will continue to be the biggest source of destabilization, militarism, and terror globally. “Name me a country in the world that doesn’t think we’re the leading nation in the world,” he said, “Who can lead the world other than the United States of America?” How about the people of the world will govern themselves? After all, you can’t lead something that’s free. Unlike the title that America bestowed upon itself suggests, “leader of the free world” is an oxymoron. But according to Biden, “America is winning and the world is better off for it.” If this feels too “anti-American” for you, remember, you don’t even need to be familiar with the history of American-backed coups d’état or support for dictatorships—even if you don’t read Noam Chomsky—you’re probably aware the US is the single biggest arms dealer worldwide. That means that any peace activist worth their salt will be, to quite a significant extent, anti-American. In 2015, the international polling agency, Gallop, was surprised when it for the first time included the question “Which country is the greatest threat to world peace?” By an overwhelming margin, second place being nowhere close, the United States was number one. Interestingly, Gallop never asked that question again. All in all, despite this DNC featuring some of the most progressive—dare I say?—leftist rhetoric in years, it left me feeling dread. I hope I’m proved wrong, but I don’t share the optimism of many of my progressive friends. I suppose, however, that there was little chance of me being impressed by a political convention—I always feel like one of those two grumpy Muppets from The Muppet Show whenever I’m watching a political event. Singing: “Why do we always come here? I guess we’ll never know, it’s like some kind of torture to have to watch the show!” In the end, the Democratic party will kill us slower. Not with the raw vindictiveness that simmers openly in the Republican party, but in a way far more treacherous; with a pleasant smile, warm embrace, and every assurance your wellbeing is paramount to their legislative agenda. As they disappear into the closed-door sessions of government, the theatrical populism no longer serving its need, they work diligently at the behest of the party’s donors. Providing inadequate and ineffective measures to slow down, but casually ensure the worst calamities. Subtly dooming us to perpetual wars, a burning planet, and creeping corporate tyranny. We will have to save ourselves.