A Green Party that will Win (Part Three)

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Nostalgia Politics The Campaign of Cornel West

A Green Party that will Win

(Part Three)

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Nostalgia Politics

&

The Campaign of Cornel West

Emanuel Pastreich

Independent candidate for president

The Green Party is swept up in an excited discussion concerning the possible nomination of Professor Cornel West, a distinguished intellectual who represents the traditional cultural norms of the Green Party, for candidate for president. West has been a long-time associate of Jill Stein who recently announced his candidacy for the People’s Party.

There has also been discussion in the Green Party of a broad coalition with Mr. Robert Kennedy Jr., who has declared his candidacy for the Democratic Nomination, while explicitly expressing his desire to form a broad front for the profound political transformation of the United States.

There is one major difference and one major similarity between the campaigns of West and Kennedy. The major difference is that whereas Mr. Kennedy shows seriousness and motivation in his preparation, and displays a sophisticated strategy to seize the initiative by driving out the deadwood from the Democratic Party, and the form a united front from left to right, the initial efforts of Professor West suggest that there is less seriousness and less strategy behind his actions, but that he is rather engaging in a creative improvisational act as a “jazz man in world politics.”

There is a similarity to the two candidates: the avoidance of discussion of massive state crimes, especially a discussion of the nature of the crimes, how they should be addressed granted the capture of the Federal government by multinational corporations, and how the victims should be compensated.

Kennedy, to his credit, has done much to question the creation of the bogus COVID 19 pandemic by global finance and other interest groups as part of an effort to destroy the economic and political freedoms of citizens. He has invaluable experience working for decades to end the assault on the health of citizens by the pharmaceutical industry and the pollution of the environment by chemical and petroleum corporations.

At the same time, Kennedy has been very circumspect about the damages that should be paid to the millions of victims of COVID-19 “vaccines,” never advocating that the assets of the multinational corporations and banks who organized this fraud be seized for compensation (as far I as I know). Perhaps he is politically smarter than I am, but he seems to prefer focusing on small fish like Anthony Fauci.

Kennedy has been silent on the 9.11 incident and on the massive transfer of trillions of dollars to private banks through quantitative easing and the 2020 COVID bailout.

Within the political environment of the Green Party, and the Democratic Party as well, it is considered common political sense to play stupid and to avoid any action that might even suggest that 9.11 and COVID-19 were state crimes. Demanding arrests of the responsible and compensation for the murdered and injured is beyond the pale. Perhaps that fish is just too big to land safely in the little boat of the Green Party, or even that of the Democratic Party.

A powerful argument can be made, however, that we have no choice but to go after the super-rich for the state crimes and global conspiracies they have promoted, to seize their assets, and to punish them in accordance with the law—as any of us would be punished in a similar case.

We simply cannot allow a class society to form in which those who have a certain amount of assets are no longer subject to the law, and in which some crimes, payment of money from the Federal Reserve to private banks, trafficking of humans by the rich, or false flag operations such as terrorist attacks or shopping mall shootings, are considered off the books.

If we just throw up our hands and say that these obvious crimes never happened, if we think that it is not worth risking our lives for something so vague and broad as justice in an imperfect world, the rich will continue with their diabolical plans, easily making up for time lost over the last six months. The next scam will be even worse, even more devastating.

Qualitative easing, the 2020 COVID multi-trillion dollar bailout of banks and corporations, the destruction of local economies using fake lockdowns that empowered Wal-Mart, Amazon and other multinational corporations and destroyed local businesses, effected a massive transfer of wealth to the super-elite.

Although things may seem normal for the moment now that we do not have to wear ridiculous masks, or take poisonous vaccines, we have become dependent on multinational corporations for all aspects of life to a degree that is unprecedented.

The creation of a radical class society will be permanent. The super-rich have constructed a separate realm for themselves that is beyond the reach of the law and the Constitution—and that is entirely untaxed. This new system cannot be altered by an election, and it cannot be undone simply by proving that vaccines are not safe, or even by sending little people like Fauci to jail.

The only way to undo this nightmare is to embrace completely a mass movement to rectify state crimes. The moment that we take on state crimes, we will be granted the moral authority to seize the assets of those super-rich, and their enablers. After all, they set up this nightmare system with their advisors and facilitators and they did so in a cruel manner. It was diabolical, immoral, and illegal.

Taking that position will also give us the legal right to seize their assets and jail them because they violated both the law and the Constitution in these criminal actions.

If we say will seize their assets as compensation for their criminal actions (and all of the super-rich were involved) then we can justify legally seizing them, and bring the government back under the control of the people. If they are treated as we would be treated, then, yes, we are morally and legally entitled to strip them of their hundreds of billions of dollars, to make them into normal people like us who must follow the law.

Organizing a program to do so will be relatively easy once we are prepared.

The failure to address state crimes, and other weaknesses of the two candidates, mean that it is too early to close the door on the debate about other possible candidates for the Green Party, or on the debate about the platform of the Green Party candidate.

In addition, there are reasons to be concerned that the nostalgia politics that have enveloped the West and Kennedy campaigns, and on which their followers rely on as they promote them, could be a hinderance to building a broad movement that will allow them to overwhelm the organized opposition from vested interests that they will face.

Highlighting the deep ties of these two candidates to some of the best of American political history, thereby locating their campaigns within the contours of previous social movements, makes them more accessible, and more appealing, while minimizing the less impressive parts of their lives.

There is a risk in that smart political move. When West wraps himself up in the mantle of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, it is at times a poor match for his inclusive message, or for the unique challenges posed by the technological totalitarianism that we face. This battle is fundamentally different from the civil rights movement that was West’s rite of passage as a youth.

So also, Kennedy’s achievements in fighting for medical freedom at the Children’s Health Defense, or elsewhere, are obscured by the sepia images of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy that make up a good part of his campaign videos. The Kennedy brothers met a tragic fate when they rightly faced down the military industrial complex. But the actual policies of the Kennedys in office are not necessarily a model for responding to today’s crisis—I would hold that Adlai Stevenson II’s platform may offer a better precedent

The glorification of past heroic figures can inhibit the hard work of building local movements that must be continued regardless of the election outcome if we want real change. Simply voting for one candidate will never be a magical transformative event. But, of course, that is precisely the message favored by political consultants.

Cornel West’s candidacy:

Between Frederick Douglass and W. E. B. Du Bois

Cornel West’s video announcing his candidacy

Frederick Douglass

W.E.B. Du Bois

Broadly read in theology, philosophy, and political science, Professor West is a vibrant and visible scholar who has made numerous forays into entertainment, talk shows, political campaigns, and various movements. West sees himself as public intellectual in the tradition of Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. DuBois, two men who worked tirelessly as leaders to inspire African Americans and as gadflies to push American political leaders to walk the straight path on racial issues.

West is an incisive critic and powerful speaker but his audience in the United States is rather limited—granted he has recently tried to reach out broadly through the People’s Party.

I have never met West in person, but we have several friends in common and he was so kind as to send me a thoughtful note of thanks when I mailed him a copy of my book “Fear No Evil.” He clearly cares deeply about common people and has played a leadership role in many movements, granted that he is not inclined towards administrative tasks and strategic planning.

When West states that he is a “jazz man in world politics, and the jazz man is always about improvisation, always about compassion, always about style, and always about a smile,” however, concerns arise that West, a man accustomed to being treated with respect as a tenured professor at Harvard and Princeton, might lack the stamina, the patience, and the tenacity required for what will be, without any doubt, a grueling, brutal and potentially dangerous campaign for the office of the president, one that will be held in a fractured nation shaken daily by the subterranean battles between factions of the military, intelligence and Homeland Security.

Or, at the least, we can say that the campaign will be grueling, brutal and potentially dangerous if he is a serious candidate.

We do not have that much to go on concerning West as a politician because this idea only emerged last month.  

The video that launched his campaign features him dressed up like Frederick Douglass delivering a witty and creative improvisational monologue wherein he places himself solidly in the civil rights movement and movements social equality over the last forty years.

He concludes the video with the following words:

“Do we have what it takes? We shall see. But some of us are going to go down fighting; go down swinging—with style and a smile. Accenting the best in you and trying to tease out the best in me.”

Much as I appreciate his fine writing, future failure in the election seems to be baked into this diffident battle cry. West gives the impression that the best we can hope for is to organize a few marches and to take a stand for our beliefs before the movement is crushed beneath the apparatus driven by the corporations, as were the campaigns of Jesse Jackson, and Bernie Sanders (both of whom West worked with closely).

One has to wonder whether West lacks the necessary confidence for a grueling campaign after decades of disappointments. Is he ready to take serious risks, to work day and night with us to create better world?

His website does not offer any way to join his movement other than to collect ballot access signatures, host an event, reach out to others about his candidacy, or become a “social media ambassador.”

In other words, there is no way for you as a citizen to give him your ideas and suggestions via an active group, nor is there any local organization that you can turn to that is involved in making long-term plans to address injustice in American society.

Inviting people to join a movement, but then offering no real means of participation, is pretty much in line with the approach of the Democratic Party since the 1970s. It was this unwillingness of the Democratic Party to support movements—which were threatening to its corporate clients—that doomed the campaigns of Jesse Jackson and Bernie Sanders, campaigns where West learned about presidential politics.

Later, West threw himself into the campaign of Barack Obama and he continued his support of Obama even after it became clear that Obama’s election was a sordid deal in which Americans were given their first African American president and in return the massive theft of money from the Federal Reserve, the militarization and privatization of the federal government, and the crimes of 9.11 and the Iraq War were swept under the carpet. A farcical campaign of “change” was used to keep the same financial players in control of economic policy.

Although we must give West credit for eventually breaking with Obama, he could not stay away from that political party of the damned. He went on to serve as advisor to Bernie Sanders in his bid for the nomination in 2016, and did so again in 2020. 

West had the good sense to finally back Jill Stein of the Green Party in 2016 when Sanders immediately endorsed Hillary Clinton after taking mountains of nickels and dimes from working people to pay for his commercials in swing states.

But when things turned more dangerous in 2020, West had no problem backing Biden for president and justifying that act as “anti-fascist.”

In short, West cannot manage to distance himself from the tar baby Democratic Party even as that party lurches to the right. For a man who is inclined to call everyone his “brother” or “sister,” it may be hard for him to draw lines in the sand. But sometimes historical reality demands it.

Also of concern is the complete absence of a discussion of COVID-19 crimes, or of any other major state crimes, on West’s website.

West is a candidate that progressive-minded Americans who lack the psychological preparation to face the horror of COVID-19 can feel comfortable with. Maybe he is appealing to some in the Green Party for precisely that reason; a soothing voice who will not touch on taboo topics, rather than a serious candidate for the presidency.

Let us remember, after all, that West claimed the United States was practicing “vaccine apartheid” towards poor nations that could not afford the expensive COVID-19 vaccines (deadly bioweapons provided by Moderna and Pfizer). Although we should be willing to forgive West for getting caught up in that political scam—we cannot do so if he does not admit that he was wrong in a suggesting that the vaccines were helpful medically.

When thinking about West as a candidate, it is important to note that whereas the 9.11 operation was aimed at conservative fundamentalist Christians, inspiring them to see themselves in a crusade with Jesus against an infidel enemy, the COVID-19 operation was aimed progressive elements, and the “science” of vaccines was tied to gender, identity, and race issues which are popular in that demographic.

West’s previous statements on COVID 19 will become a crippling liability if he runs into a candidate like Kennedy who has fearlessly denounced the vaccines from the very beginning.

And what if West debates Kennedy, who is gearing up to make truth about COVID-19 the main arrow in his quiver?

The COVID-19 scam is not an abstract conspiracy theory any more. The Pfizer papers, and a host of medical documentation, makes the true nature of that slaughter of citizens unbearably clear. By next summer it may be mainstream commonsense that it was a crime against humanity. 

That means that West’s claim that,

“I am running for truth and justice and as a candidate for president of the United States in the Green Party. I want to reintroduce America to the best of itself—the dignity, courage, the creativity of precious everyday people.”

could come back to bite him in the near future.

Truth is the most powerful political tool, but it is also an unforgiving master.

Whereas speeches about empathy, solidarity, love, and unity can be inspiring, truth is by its nature undemocratic and uncompromising. We do not vote to determine the truth.

Or perhaps West imagines that he can maintain a politics of “truth and justice” that artistically avoids discussion of 9.11, secret governance, the COVID-19 scam, or the transfer of trillions of tax dollars to private equity via COVID 19 stimulus and quantitative easing?

West is completely right to identify the dangers posed by the Pentagon, big pharma, and Wall Street, but he does not describe how they work, and who exactly benefits from them. Nor does he present a concrete plan for how to take those powers down.  

To some extent, this softness in tone that we see in West, even as he assumes an anti-imperialistic position, is common among progressives, especially those who bask in the fading light of the movements of the 1960s. Somehow West feels a need to keep his smile even when confronting the worst of corporate fascism. That refusal to be harsh, even brutal, in confronting the horrors of the current parasite economy is what distinguishes West from Kennedy.

We can certainly sympathize with his basic humanity, but if he is planning to lead a revolution, or stand against fascism, that will require a different posture. Otherwise, he risks being used by the political masters as a safety valve for political frustrations.

(See Emanuel’s platform here)