Margaret Kimberley, Executive Editor and Senior Columnist of Black Agenda Report is again in conversation with Ajamu Baraka, Black Agenda Report Editor and Contributor. The US presidential election is just four weeks away, and momentous events are occurring, particularly in Western Asia, where Israel continues its onslaught with an invasion of Lebanon, the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and a limited response from Iran. We'll discuss the impact of these events on domestic politics and how the US might bring some peace if it was inclined to do so.
Margaret Kimberley: Welcome back. Ajamu.
Ajamu Baraka: Glad to be here. Thank you. Margaret.
MK: So here we are in a very unusual situation where we are on the verge of a presidential election in just a few weeks and both candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, pledge loyalty to Israel. Their only argument is who is more supportive of Israel. President Biden seems to be absent. We don't really know how involved he is, what role he's playing in these events, but one thing is certain, that Israel feels emboldened to do whatever it wants to do as we are one year from the Operation Al Aqsa Flood of October 7, 2023. So there's a lot going on. What are your overall observations about this moment?
AB: So this is a very incredible moment. It's incredible on so many different levels. Who would have imagined that we would be witnesses to a livestreamed genocide a year ago? But what makes that even more incredible is the fact that not only did we witness a genocide that began October 8th, but a year later it is still ongoing and all of the post-war Institutions established to supposedly prevent or punish crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, have been completely neutralized, leaving the Palestinian people completely abandoned and defensless, except through their own abilities. Those institutions, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the UN Security Council, and international law developed after 1945, including the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention, have now been exposed to be basically useless when powerful states decide to ignore them and to operate as outlaws.
With all of the crimes that have occurred in human history, especially over the last five hundred years of European colonial/capitalist hegemony, nothing compares to the vicious assault on the concentration camp called Gaza. Not because of its scale or even viciousness, it should be remembered that the assault on Libya during the Obama administration resulted in estimates of up to 50,000 deaths in just over seven months. But of course, images of that attack were carefully curated and disseminated by the mainstream press to support the narrative of the NATO mission as a mission to save the Libyan people. The same can be said about the crimes committed by Marines in the infamous assault on Fallujah during the Iraq war and the more recent assaults on Mosul and Raqqa in the war against ISIS.
No one was ready for the graphic brutality that was covered by courageous journalists in Gaza, journalists who paid a heavy price once the Israeli forces began targeting them, killing well over a hundred. The world reacted with moral revulsion, but Netanyahu and some in the U.S. foreign policy community saw a further opportunity to not only destroy Hamas and the Palestinians' resistance but with the virtual disappearance of Joe Biden and no restraints placed on Israel, Hezbollah and Iran became the target of opportunity. Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law, said it would be completely irresponsible for the US and Israel not to take the not to take opportunity given to it, to finally deal with Hezbollah and Iran.
They see Iran in a much weaker position right now as a consequence of the decapitation strikes against the leadership of Hezbollah. And so the U.S. has opened up another front working this time with and through the IDF believing that this will be in the longer term interests of both the U.S. and Israel.
MK: Kamala Harris gave an interview on 60 Minutes this week and in the usual fashion of corporate media, they asked a leading question that completely supports US foreign policy. The interviewer asked who she thought was America's biggest adversary. In her usual shallow way, she sort of stumbled through the question, but eventually said it was Iran. So we see the bipartisan nature of US foreign policy, that while we're told this election is so important and the biggest one ever and we have to keep Trump out, we have agreement, we have consensus between the two parties.
AB: That's what makes it so difficult for the US electorate, that those people who believe that the US resources are being squandered in pursuit of militarism have no champion in the mainstream politics of the US. The only campaigns that are raising critical questions regarding us militarism are, in fact, the third parties, the Stein campaign, the West campaign, and the PSL, the Party for Socialism and Liberation. But of course, they are dismissed by people like Mehdi Hassan and his pragmatic ilk who only imagine the short-term, and therefore, legitimizing the practical arguments advanced by supporters of the democrat party that the struggle for real influence only takes place within the context of the duopoly, as though progressives and radicals really had some influence over the right-wing neoliberals that now control that party.
So the discourse then in the mainstream, is so incredibly narrow, and it's not reflective of the real concerns of the US population. People are concerned about and beginning to understand the connection between the inability of the state to address their material needs and the enormous amounts of money being used to support the militaristic policies of the US state. And even Donald Trump, in some ways, is raising a bit of that question when he raises the issue of the amount of money being spent or sent to Ukraine, versus what he sees as a vulnerability, the kind of articulated policy in response to the hurricane that devastated North Carolina and the $750 that has been offered to the population versus the millions sent to Ukraine. What's interesting about that too, Margaret, is that the comments around the hurricane relief that came from the Biden administration came a day after that same administration was attempting to greenlight another $8.7 billion not for Ukraine, but for Israel.
So there is the real possibility of these connections being made and becoming more clear for the US population. There should be more articulation and critique of these policies in the mainstream, but well, those things are not happening. And so in that interview with 60 Minutes, we see how superficial and consistent Kamala Harris is when it comes to Israel, and when it comes to her inability to articulate a real difference from Donald Trump on that issue and many other issues here during this electoral cycle, because objectively, there aren't that many real differences, and people are beginning to see that.
And if there's no real differences, then people are beginning to look at other issues like the economy, that is an issue that many people feel more confident that Donald Trump has the ability to address more so than the Democrats, and so it is to the detriment of the Democrats that they're unable to articulate an economic program similar to what some of the policies were related to the Build Back Better policies that can actually demonstrate a real difference between themselves and Donald Trump and the Trumpian forces, and they can't do that, because there's no real differences between those two forces.
MK: I think you touched on something important. So we see this consensus about Israel, about Ukraine, about all foreign policy, but no effort to even show any difference domestically. And so it seems that with the Democrats, their campaign theme is demonizing Trump, talking about issues like abortion, although I don't believe that even if she wins, they're going to protect abortion rights like they claim they will, talking about the federal judiciary, important issues, but not, as you said, related to the material conditions of the people. They don't even seem to be pretending. Why do you think that is their decision? I can only think of it as a decision to believe that they can thread that needle and squeak through electorally while ignoring the day to day conditions that people are living with.
AB: I think Margaret, I think it's connected. I think it's related to the low level political discourse in the US where a campaign can not only ignore policies but you can actually run a major campaign without really developed policy positions. And that is exactly what the Harris campaign was attempting to do. And even on the Trump side, they're doing something very similar. He has one main issue, which is immigration, that he harps on. He does make some commentary about the economy, but this is a campaign not being run on policy differences or policy issues at all, and part of the reason why they can get away with that is because that kind of superficiality is not being pointed out by the mainstream media. And so it's all about personality. It's all about the construction of the other candidate as the threat to democracy or threat to traditional values or whatever, as opposed to those real issues that face the US population. I think the consequence of this is going to be reflected in turnout, but reflected also in the kind of vote that may end up being given to Donald Trump. When it comes to populism, it seems that a populist, a right wing populist, in this case, Donald Trump, has a bit of an advantage over the kind of neo-liberal, technocratic, non-policy positions that are emanating from the Harris campaign.
We look at sectors, for example, and you look at the youth. Again, the youth are concerned about issues of the economy, and so the almost 9 million young people who are going to vote this year are actually in play. It appears not only are they turned off to the genocide of policies of the Democrat party, but they are actually contemplating voting for Trump, a large number of them because of their concerns about the economy and their concerns about the income inequality. Interesting enough, when it comes to the Black population, is very similar in terms of the kind of class concerns that people have in the working class, where they find it very, very difficult but to pay their bills when they are in this economic precarity where they're paying almost half of the income on rent, and everybody's feeling the impact of the inflation and particularly as it relates to the cost of food.
So when Donald Trump talks about or suggests that things were much better during his administration, it resonates. So I think that the Democrats are going to possibly experience a real surprise in October and with this conflict in West Asia, even if that expands, and usually that results in more confidence being given to the incumbent administration at a time of war, I don't think even that is going to save the Democrats, in fact, is going to reinforce the notion that Trump pushes that the world is in chaos and that the responsible parties for the chaos are, in fact, the Democrats.
MK: And lastly, regarding the Black vote and Black politics, such as it is, what do you think?
The response to Trump is the usual one, the Republicans being largely the white people's party. It's been 60 years since a Democrat got most of the white vote in a presidential election. So we hear this fear mongering basically, Project 2025, or Trump is going to take us back, and Black voters are being motivated only by fear of Trump. If he should win again, what is it we at Black Agenda Report and those of us who are activists, what is it we should be saying to Black people in this country?
AB: That no matter who wins in November, we are going to have to continue to struggle, that both parties, in different ways, are committed to restricting the space for democratic discourse, that both parties are pursuing policies that are only going to benefit different sectors of the capitalist ruling class, that both parties are committed to the continuation of using the military to advance the interests of the most important and powerful sector of the ruling class, which is US finance capital, and that both parties are committed to the continuation of white supremacy. So we have to disabuse ourselves of any notions that our interests, as working class people, primarily, are going to be addressed by either one of the parties. And so therefore we've got to develop for ourselves, programs of survival, programs that would deepen our level of organization. So we can afford, in fact, try to force some concessions as a consequence of our organized power. But we have to be committed to building alternative structures that will allow us to survive in these pressing times, because things are only going to get worse as the capitalist system unravels, and as the relationships between the US and their subordinate states are shifted in such a way where the US is not going to be able to engage in a kind of intensive parasitic exploitation in the past, which means that materially, things will continue to become tight for people in this country. So we have nothing but years of struggle before us. And I might sound pessimistic, but I think it's realistic and something we've got to come to terms with.
MK: Thank you. Thank you so much. Ajamu.
AB: Thank you. My pleasure.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ajamu Baraka is the Chairman of the Coordinating Committee of the Black Alliance for Peace and an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the U.S.-based United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) and the Steering Committee of the Black is Back Coalition.
Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents . You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on the Twitter , Bluesky , and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at margaret dot kimberley at blackagendareport dot com.
URL has been copied successfully!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •