Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com.

The US Capitol: Magnificent building, sordid business.

[dropcap]Despite[/dropcap] being the world’s self-appointed champion and proselytizer of the gospel of democracy, the United States is clearly and unmistakably an undemocratic nation.

Though it is no longer the world’s foremost industrial producer, the United States still does lead in one important export: “democracy.” Washington has taken the lead in undermining, demonizing, and otherwise destabilizing Russia and China, Venezuela and Iran, Syria and North Korea – countries in need of regime change because, according to Washington, they are undemocratic.

But what is this peculiar brand of “democracy” that the United States purports to be the apogee of the political development of so-called “Western” civilization? If the US is serious about spreading democratic ideals to all corners of the globe, then surely it has long since embodied those same ideals in its domestic political institutions, right? Well, not exactly. OK, not at all.

Is there democracy in Washington?

In his classic work Politics, Aristotle famously asserted that, “If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will best be attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” As Aristotle notes, democracy can only truly provide liberty and equality – both central elements of the US mythos – if it is “shared” by “all persons alike.” In other words, there can only be true democracy when everyone shares control over the political institutions through which power is wielded. However, the United States of 2015 could not be further from Aristotle’s ideal.

As the 114th US Congress opens its session in Washington this month, it is once again time to take note of the stark difference between the people of the United States, and those who have been“democratically” elected to represent them. A Washington Post headline from January makes this divide plainly obvious: The new Congress is 80 percent white, 80 percent male and 92 percent Christian. Stop and think about those figures for just a moment. The notion that this government is actually representative of the people is utterly laughable.

GOP leadership. There’s really no difference between the parties, so the labels are simply used to delude the public. (Via DonkeyHotey.flickr)

According to the most recent US Census figures, the racial, gender/sex, and religious identities of members of the US Congress is not at all aligned with the demographic reality. Roughly 63 percent of the US population included in the census self-identifies as “White only” (meaning they do not identify as “white + another racial affiliation”), while 80 percent of Congress is white. This may seem a relatively reflective representation of racial demographics, but this is misleading. Not included in the census are the millions of non-white immigrants who, for a variety of reasons (e.g. seasonal work migration, fear of law enforcement, etc.) do not participate in such data gathering. So, taken conservatively, the racial makeup of Congress, while moderately over-representing whites, is not entirely unrepresentative of the population. Or so it would seem.

However, one must look more closely to see that the racial makeup of the Congress does little to affect its policies which cater to a mostly white corporate and financial elite, while to a large extent ignoring the economic and social problems that plague minority communities throughout the country. And so, you can see in the halls of Congress, a Congressional Black Caucus that almost without exception votes in a bloc with their white Democrat allies if, for no other reason, to preserve their own positions as they cater to mostly white donors. Perhaps the prime example of such behavior is President Obama himself who, despite being of African descent, has always eschewed race-related issues in favor of the typical vacuous American platitude of “togetherness” which, quite conveniently, seems to never offend or inconvenience the white power brokers who have made his career.

The same subsumption to power is true for the nominally “non-White” Hispanic Congressmen (and women) in South Florida, whose anti-Castro politics have, for generations now, made them into a reliable constituency and voting bloc for the Republican party – a party which caters to white racists, corporate suits, and a sprinkling of token minorities that lend the credibility of political correctness to a party that successfully absorbed the racist, Southern vote more than fifty years ago. The reality is that an elected official, regardless of whether he/she is Black or Hispanic, is most often, and almost without exception, transformed into merely a dark-skinned ally of the white political establishment; they have no political will or power independent of that establishment.

And therein lay the real issue. In trying to understand the political character of the United States, and the consequent political culture spawned from it, race is not of value in and of itself. Rather, it is the ways in which race and racial identity intersect with power and the political establishment that is of interest. For, as the United States trumpets democracy and the so-called “values of liberalism” around the world, it quietly obscures the fact that racial equality, or even necessarily “progress,” is an illusion, a public relations marketing campaign to propagate the myths of liberty and equality.

With regard to gender, Congress is even more unrepresentative. While women account for more than 51 percent of the total population of the US, they account for roughly 20 percent of Congressional representatives. Despite nearly 50 years of a Feminist movement, and all the talk of equality, and all the attacks upon non-Western countries for their treatment of women, the US remains distinctly patriarchal. It seems that Washington is perfectly content to argue for more war in Afghanistan, ostensibly to protect the rights of girls to go to school, while still being unable to even break through its own deeply oppressive, male-dominated political system. Irrespective of one’s personal beliefs, the objective fact is that the beacon of democracy is still controlled by mostly white men. Is there something inherently evil about white men? No. But there definitely is something wrong with a society dominated by white men which presents itself as anything but.

Finally, there is the issue of religion and the religious affiliation of the elected members of Congress. The new Congress will open its session with a whopping 92 percent of representatives identifying as Christian. This is staggeringly higher than the total Christian-identifying population (which includes many denominations/sects) of the US which is, at maximum, 78 percent. It should be noted that, though not Christian, Jewish representatives, by virtue of financial and political backing of both Jewish and non-Jewish interests, are de facto members of the same political establishment, and thereby don’t functionally act as a minority, despite the demographics. And so, if Jewish identification were to be included with the Christian, it becomes clear who is, and who is not, being truly represented by Congress.

As the Washington Post noted, “The group that Pew [Research] finds most underrepresented on the [Capitol] Hill is those without a religious affiliation – comprising nearly 20 percent of the public and 0.2 percent of Congress.” Think about this statistic. 20 percent of the US is not affiliated with any religion (including atheists, agnostic, secular/religious unaffiliated, or don’t know/refused to answer), while almost no representatives identify in this way. And so, roughly 63.5 million Americans have no one representing their religious beliefs (or unbelief as it were). This is, by any measure, an egregious example of the unrepresentative nature of the US Congress.

Put more simply, tens of millions of Americans don’t have the option of choosing to vote for someone who actually represents them, their interests, or their values. Rather, they have the option of choosing one of two distasteful candidates who do not accurately reflect their needs or aspirations, and have little to no interest in anything other than being elected and profiting from their position.

Will it be Coke or Pepsi? McDonald’s or Burger King?

Democracy is not a political system in the US, it is a product to be bought and sold – the armies of lobbyists, interest groups, and fundraisers are a testament to that. It is a concept to be pitched like a Hollywood script or a television commercial, only to be disseminated to the masses as if it were reality.

Democracy is America’s collective delusion. It is America’s dream of itself.

But, like all dreams, it simply evaporates the moment you wake up.

What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

U.S. President Barack Obama (RIA Novosti / Sergey Guneev)

Russia-NATO relations

Robert Bridge

[dropcap]On December 4[/dropcap] as America was tuned into Thursday night football, or staring into the cold depths of the refrigerator at commercial time, House members brought the nation one step closer to all-out war with Russia.

Future historians – that is, assuming there are humans still around to contemplate history – may one day point to House Resolution 758 (a full critique of this vile act of Congress is included in our Appendix, written by none other than a card-carrying Libertarian, and originally published on LewRockewell.com) as the single piece of legislation that sparked a global conflagration between two leading nuclear powers.

This is not hyperbole. US rhetoric against Russia is quickly overstepping reality, causing US politicians to endorse policies that severely inflate the perceived threat. When political veteran Ron Paul says the House passed what he ranked as “one of the worst pieces of legislation ever,” well, we had better sit up and switch off CNN, especially when that legislation happens to involve a historical heavyweight like Russia.

Resolution 758 was forged in a political furnace of unbalanced, one-sided debate, where American politicians regularly attempt to outdo each other in a lame contest called ‘Russian fear mongering.’ This popular game, which is never out of season, is played among intellectually challenged officials looking for quick political advantage; a bit like Special Olympics for American politicians where everybody goes home a winner.

However, these Russian games are no longer a laughing matter as they were during the feel-good Yeltsin era. Vladimir Putin has shown himself to be a highly competent statesman and whether this fact is responsible for America’s bad mood is difficult to say. Whatever the case may be, judging by the wording of HR 758, America seems to be sliding inexorably towards a ‘war footing’ with Russia.

The opening paragraph of HR 758 accuses Russia of conducting an “invasion of Ukraine” and violating its territorial sovereignty. Like so much else in this resolution, the statement is delivered into American living rooms like a dry, cold pizza without the toppings. Yet nobody, except Ron Paul and a few others, seems to be complaining.

A joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol (Mark Wilson/Getty Images/AFP)

“Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion,” Paul argued. “None have been offered. As to Russia’s ‘violation of Ukrainian sovereignty,’ why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February?”

Indeed, as Ukraine was approaching open rebellion, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine were overheard in taped conversations bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. They even mentioned the names of the individuals the US wants to see in leadership positions, and while we’re at it: ‘F*ck the EU!’

Paragraph 13 of the document demands the “withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine” even though not a shred of evidence has been produced to prove that the Russian army ever set foot in Ukraine. Further on, HR 758 urges Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence, a move that will certainly exasperate East-West relations if it goes forward.

Paragraph 14 states that Malaysia Airlines flight 17, which went down in murky circumstances in eastern Ukraine, was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.”

How can the House make such a reckless conclusion when the final report on the investigation of this tragedy is not scheduled to be released until next year? Moreover, the preliminary report never says that a missile was responsible for bringing down MH17.

Paragraph 22 states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the historical record since it is well known that Georgian forces launched a crack-of-dawn military offensive against South Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians, as well as a dozen Russian peacekeepers. Yes, Russia chased the Georgian army back to the outskirts of Tbilisi before turning back, but what country would have done differently under similar circumstances?

A woman stands by her smoldering home in the Lidievka district, after it was hit and destroyed by shelling in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on December 6, 2014. (AFP Photo/Eric Feferberg)

HR 758 also calls on Russia “to reverse its illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula, to end its support of the separatist forces in Crimea, and to remove its military forces from that region other than those operating in strict accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine.”

This statement represents the falsification of history in an effort to pursue a political agenda. The people of the Crimean peninsula, under the threat of violence from government forces, independently called for a referendum to decide their sovereign status. Only after Crimea voted – overwhelmingly – to join the Russian Federation did the Russian Duma hold a vote on the issue. The entire process was done according to the dictates of international law.

There are many more such preposterous claims and dangerous demands in HR 758, yet the document has been greeted with a deafening silence in the United States by the corporate-owned media.

“Global security is at stake,” writes Michel Chossudovsky in Veteran News. “This historic vote – which potentially could affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide– has received virtually no media coverage. A total media blackout prevails.”

PLEASE EXAMINE THE APPENDIX FOR THE ROLL CALL VOTE on H R 758 and identify the criminals and traitors (Democrats voting with the GOP, and proving the “alternative” party is no such thing in anything of importance) that passed this vile piece of legislation. 

REGULAR ARTICLE RESUMES HERE

It is the opinion here that the recent upsurge in anti-Russian rhetoric, which is quickly transforming into concrete actions, is not a new phenomenon. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States never really shook off its cold war hangover, and moreover, never really wanted to.

A holier-than-thou attitude has permeated the great majority of US think-tank papers over the years, creating a palpable sense of fear towards Russia while sowing the seeds for immense defense sector profits. Newspaper articles since the time of Boris Yeltsin have dripped with condescending, disparaging remarks about Russia, which have worked to create a particular mindset in many Americans towards a country they have most likely never experienced firsthand.

Meanwhile, inside the world of America’s hermetically sealed cauldron of ‘academic Russian studies’ (READ: Sovietology) – a veritable echo chamber where anti-Russian mantras are recited like unthinking prayers – an atmosphere of hostility against Russia has been carefully cultivated for years. There are only a handful of honest US academicians as far as Russia is concerned.

Sevastopol residents at a celebratory show held after the referendum on Crimea’s status. (RIA Novosti/Valeriy Melnikov)

Sevastopol residents at a celebratory show held after the referendum on Crimea’s status. (RIA Novosti/Valeriy Melnikov)

Given this overtly hostile attitude towards all things Russian, it was quite easy for the United States to sell the idea of a dangerous enemy “on the doorstep of NATO” that has some kind of wild desire to recreate an empire.

Yet what country has been steadily encroaching on Russia’s doorstep like a wolf in sheep’s clothing since the end of the Cold War? What country has refused to cooperate with Russia in its missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, thus bringing the continent to the brink of another arms race? What country has over 800 military franchises spanning the globe, yet accuses Russia of yearning for empire? What country has launched military offensives against seven countries in the last six years, yet calls Russia an “aggressive state” because it dares defends itself when attacked by a foreign power? What country has been playing geopolitical games in Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union – even sending high-ranking political figures into central Kiev to spew venomous rhetoric against Russia when it appeared that Ukraine was going to join an economic bloc with Russia, as opposed to the EU?

Before the US Senate votes on HR758, it should ask itself these simple questions, otherwise it risks stirring up a hornet’s nest of problems the world does not need.

Robert Bridge has worked as a journalist in Russia since 1998. Formerly the editor-in-chief of The Moscow News, Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, which discusses the dangerous consequences of extreme corporate power in the United States.