Ralph invites back award-winning war correspondent and author, Chris Hedges, to discuss his new book “The Greatest Evil is War” in which he points out that war is not only a racket but - no matter what its causes - a moral obscenity.
While Chris Hedges was right that the Deathocrats are nothing more than the least worse choice when compared to Republikillers and citizens need to hold them accountable, just saying we need to hold them accountable provides no plan of action to hold them accountable.
winningamerica.net also does nothing to hold Deathocrats accountable, it merely provides Deathocrats with advice on how to keep the charade going by providing things for Deathocrats to campaign on and ignores what Deathocrats actually do. We can't make any progress voting on the empty promises of Deathocrats- we have to vote on what they actually do which is provide a false alternative to the Republikillers.
While Deathocrats don't say it when they take big money to run their campaigns they are telling us by their actions that they are working for the big money interests and not for ordinary citizens.
Citizens can hold them accountable by not voting for Deathocrats and participating in One Demand by casting a write in vote to register a vote against the big money Deathocrats and Republikillers in 2022 to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in 2024.
You need to hold yourself accountable for your inaction since 2015 when I first contacted you about One Demand and standing up against the Deathocrats and Republikillers that are enemies of democracy and enemies of ordinary citizens.
And it is up to your listeners to demand that you do it and do it now.
The winningamerica.net Ralph Nader is a pitiful parody of the Ralph Nader that did so much in defense of democracy and ordinary citizens in years past.
winningamerica.net is not good for 2022 or 2024 as you claimed unless you want democracy to die.
winningamerica.net is part of the problem. Citizens need you to instead be part of the solution.
Chris Hedges failed in his "two minutes" when he provided only empty rhetoric and no plan of action. When are you going to provide me with the "two minutes" you promised on Washington Journal (10-24-2018) when you said you would have me on the Radio Hour to discuss a real plan of action provided by One Demand?
Better late than never to provide a plan of action using the basic principle of democracy that you often espouse that politicians want our votes more than they want big money.
Let's put that plan of action into action now to provide citizens with a better alternative to big money Republikillers than the false alternative that is the big money Deathocrats before it is TOO LATE.
All points well taken but i disagree that those organizations, groups and individuals are failing to provide solutions. The solution is all of us on the streets. I am guilty of it, in part - because of disability related issues it is hard for me to be out and about too much - but most of the people who complain are stuck behind their phones and computers, fighting with words and very little context, pretending that speaking the truth to someone they see as ignoring facts will solve the problems. The only thing it does is to boos their ego. There are people on the ground that the media refuses to cover but they are not a big enough crowd that the media cannot ignore. So we keep fighting with words, lazy in a way, but still comfortable enough to not be moved to real action. Once in a while there is a march, but that's a "fun gathering", not part of a strategy to bring about change.
Democrats and republicans are all too happy that we are apathetic like this. They are not affected, they will keep raising money and following the orders of their handlers - the corporate world - and keep building their bunkers waiting for the worse case scenario.
I admire the work people are doing but I am also hopeless that the ones who need to listen and who have some power to do something don't care enough to even take in the demands and advices.
I still call the senators and congressperson who claim to represent me. I go ignored 100% of the time, and it is a chore to keep doing this.
So we keep fighting with words, lazy in a way, but still comfortable enough to not be moved to real action. Once in a while there is a march, but that's a "fun gathering", not part of a strategy to bring about change.
_________
I have no idea how old you are. But I was in grammar school when JF Kennedy was assassinated. Then Martin Luther King, and then RF Kennedy. There were more. Gandhi is one more that comes to mind (India) Also the Black Panthers leaders assassinated, David Koresh Waco Texas where every man women and child was killed at the Branch Davidian Compound. That doesn't mean David Koresh was innocent. It means we will never know. The point is you are not lazy and the movement is not lazy.
Everything cooled off to down right cold after the slaughter of such good people. Then with modern surveillance leaders who are effective and can motivate people to take action are targeted. They are arrested intimidated and much more. Some die accidentally, or suicide (with two shots to the head). This takes most of the steam out of effective public protest.
We here in California fought hard to Label GMOs. We lost by just 2%. We lacked the money that Corporate Food and Agriculture had. Our arguments never made it to the main stream media. But corporate messaging was on the Radio and TV night and day. They said the expense of labeling GMOs (simply label your product as GMO nothing more) was to much to ask Big Food.
I say all this because what you talk about is how to stay alive. Seriously staying alive. Or staying healthy. You are doing a great job. It is very tough these days to do anything against the union of Media, Gov and Corporations.
The groups/organizations and individuals are promising solutions but not actually providing them.
The solution is not in the streets as the powers that be have adapted to the marches/protests using them to manipulate citizens and the media does not cover them as they did in the past.
The solution is to take the protest into the voting booth where it cannot be ignored.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. We need to demand that politicians do not take big money and enforce that demand with our votes.
The Deathocrats and Republikillers are not affected by marches/protests and keep taking big money and following the orders of their handlers because they keep getting citizens to vote for them. If we keep voting for big money candidates we will keep getting big money legislators.
People such as Ralph or Chris Hedges probably do care but have not adapted their strategies as what worked in the sixties does not work now.
"People such as Ralph or Chris Hedges probably do care but have not adapted their strategies as what worked in the sixties does not work now. "
Don, I agree with this statement and I believe it applies to more than just electoral reform. For example, many people, including most progressives, still espouse economic beliefs which might have made sense, and even that is debatable, prior to the Nixon Shock of 1971, but those beliefs are certainly not applicable today. Sadly, this economic ignorance has hamstrung progressive causes and neoliberals have taken advantage of this to their great benefit. This is certainly related to the increasingly uneven electoral playing field since the 1980s, though certainly there is a lot more to things than that.
The Nixon Shock has the capability of being the greatest power progressives have in achieving full employment, single-provider universal healthcare, green technology, and so forth, but progressives must understand how this works or else corporate interests will continue to use this to their great advantage and to the public's disadvantage.
On this note, I believe that Michael Hudson's retort to the commenter from Scotland was a bit off-base factually and, worse, Mr. Hudson's conspiratorial tone made it seem that it is useless for the public to push for progressive policy because the Fed is run by bankers. This is simply not true. If Congress passes progressive policy, it will be funded by the Fed. Period. The issue is Congress is under corporate control, but I see that you have some ideas about how to solve this.
On top of that, one must understand the economic structure to see how progressive policy works. Mr. Nader mentioned in this week's program that Medicare for All was sunk by the Vietnam War and funds needing to be allocated for that. Well, during Johnson's time pre-Nixon Shock, that might have been a hurdle, but it isn't post-Nixon Shock. It takes economic knowledge to understand this though. The RNRH can, and should, cover this better.
That is very true. I fear however that the country is already owned. Candidates that are not selected by wealth will not get on the ticket. If they do and they work contrary to the moneyed interests (very hard now with the massive bureaucratic nest that is the federal government) most seem to get lead poisoning. Though today other types of fatal illness are available.
Whether or not one takes money out of politics. One cannot prevent control of any candidate by big money or the massive bureaucratic federal government. Simply stated "health concerns" become motivators of most of the most honest politicians.
Candidates that are not selected by wealth will not get on the big money Deathocrat and Republikiller tickets which is the purpose of casting the write in vote to create and demonstrate demand for a different ticket.
Without our votes the politicians will be motivated by the "health concerns" of their campaigns as the campaign's will die without our votes.
I share your view, and raise you. This is an old idea shared by a much wiser person than me in the mid 1970s. On the ballot there should be a box, NONE OF THE ABOVE. If none of the above wins then that entire slate of candidates is prevented from running during that election cycle.
Casting a write in vote is voting none of the above.
But if you are voting none of the above in the general election then it is too late to prevent anyone from running, though it could in some instances prevent the candidates on the ballot from being elected.
I do not think anyone, including big money candidates, should be prevented from running unless they participate in some form of treason/insurrection.
I understand your point. Back in the day we discussed this a lot at the time. There is a reason we said they could not run again for that position that election cycle. Why? So the electorate can see a fresh set of faces. See fresh debates etc. Then run the election of that slate for say President. If NONE OF THE ABOVE wins again. Then a completely new slate is presented to the electorate. And so on until someone is elected. Why this process?
If the process is used it means big money can't manipulate the electorate as easily. Just to expensive as the electorate may vote NONE OF THE ABOVE. A new slate means the money spent on the earlier candidate is lost, except for the messaging.
Given todays electronic voting it would be relatively easy to implement such a system. With block chain it would be very hard to stuff the ballot box so to speak.As the years go by at the candidate level it becomes less expensive to run. No longer would money be able to control the message and the candidates.
A bit of a pipe dream. But as in the case of the current election None Of the Above might win by a land slide. Then again it may just be a pipe dream.
Even after Chris Hedges' impassioned explanation of why voting for either of the two war-mongering parties was an act of self-destruction, you still had Mark Green come on and present a way of fooling voters into electing officials whose pre-paid war-mongering will make any of their promises impossible to fulfill. Election Reform to allow Green Party access should have been the next segment, instead. There are no ballot access transgressions that Republicans won't commit against Democrats that, given the chance, Democrats won't commit against Greens.
Hedges is a putin loving neo fascist who repeats the dictators lies about Ukraine. No memtion by il duce Hedges of the ethnic cleansing being carried out by Putin the thug. Pathetic appeaser.
Although Klassik is unhappy with the RNRH switch to a corporate platform such as SubStack (SubStack requires arbitration for disputes…it seems odd and inappropriate for an official website related to Mr. Nader to have such a stipulation), Klassik has decided to join SubStack in order to participate here.
Regarding David’s question to Mr. Green about minimum wage: There is certainly reason and need for an increase in minimum wage, but this is where merely increasing minimum wage is not even minimally sufficient policy. The best example I can give of this is what happened when Britain enacted a minimum wage under neoliberal PM Tony Blair. This was discussed in a relatively new book, but I’ve forgotten which one. Sorry about that.
Anyway, the point is that while Blair’s minimum wage was necessary, it proved to be politically unhelpful for Blair’s (New) Labour Party in the long-term. Why? Blair was a neoliberal, like Thatcher, and the country under Blair continued Thatcher’s goals of globalism, corporate deregulation, and the subsequent destruction of labor in the country. A minimum wage is only so helpful when wage-paying jobs are not protected by the government.
Furthermore, while the minimum wage helped the poorest in the country raise from poverty to slightly less impoverished, it did little for those who were making more than the minimum wage, but who were still poor and suffering from degraded public services under neoliberalism. These citizens, along with those who saw their jobs evaporate in the name of short-term corporate profits, grew wary of the New Labour Party and the British Conservative Party has dominated the British political scene since. Does this sound familiar to us Americans? It should because the situation here is not too dissimilar.
Of course, the Conservatives push for the same neoliberalism so they are a bad answer, but their marketing works better. The bottom line, as it relates to those of us in the US, is that an increased minimum wage without increased corporate regulation, a push to increase actual jobs and not ‘gig’ jobs, and a push towards full employment will not lead to better results for the citizens or for anyone even pretending to be a progressive candidate. I’m sorry to say the Biden Administration is doing very little about any of this. Even if there is an increase in minimum wage, the other forms of neoliberalism will just lead citizens to believe right-wing propaganda that the increase in minimum wage leads to inflation, destruction of career-type jobs, and so forth. The only answer to this is comprehensive policy reform and it is that which any progressive candidate, which excludes most national Democrats, must advocate for in campaigns and when they get into office.
I certainly hope David does not take this as criticism. I merely see David’s point as an issue that needs further explanation. Those pushing for progressive policy on labor must understand how economics is on the side of full employment and how livable wages are achievable. A guest specializing in labor economics such as Bill Mitchell would help explain this further beyond what I can add. Most progressives, much less the general population, live in ignorance of this economic knowledge.
Regarding Mr. Hedges’ Book: Thanks for having Mr. Hedges on, he’s usually a good guest. I appreciate the important coverage of foreign policy. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson is another good guest on the RNRH who should not be a stranger to the show. Is there any possibility Anatol Lieven could be scheduled? He’s another usually reliable foreign policy analyst.
Last time RMRH had Chris Hedges on you claimed that RT Russian Today is an independent news outlet when in fact it's a state funding of the Kremlin. In 2016, Putin invited Dr. Jill Stein, Julian Assaunge's father, Rocky Anderson (former mayor of SLC), and Michael Flynn to a 10 year anniversary dinner for RT at the Kremlin sponsor by Putin.
Imperial conquest sucks life blood so we have to face up to it in the most effective and meaningful way. We have to resist it whenever it threatens any part of the world. By doing so In each new and terrifying instance, we have the responsibility to cite and condemn the recent atrocities no matter their origin and cause. Please take a look in the mirror if you condemn US imperial wars for oil but you still drive a car fly, and consume plastic etc.
Don Klepack - There is a Democrat that is anti-war, anti-corporate crime and that is Tulsi Gabbard. Her anti-war against Regime change is obvious. She is also Ant-Coorporate Crime. Gabbard has advocated for financial reform since first running for Congress, including such measures as restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, breaking up too-big-to-fail banks, strengthening protections against predatory lending practices, increasing capital requirements for the nation's largest banks, and banning naked credit default swaps. #TulsiGabbard2024.
That women, Tulsi Gabbard is for free speech and she's against regime change. She's for saving American lives. She's says Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. .She's now an independent. Tulsi Gabbard was a democratic but for Free Speech. She's not hateful. She accepts that Trump won in 2016 unlike people in her party that said Trump is an illegitimate president. Right now the democratic party is the Party of hate. Speaking to conservatives does NOT make you a Republican. Trying to elect a Republican whose for Free Speech does not make you a Republican. Attacking Vice President Harris, does not make you a Republican.
While Chris Hedges was right that the Deathocrats are nothing more than the least worse choice when compared to Republikillers and citizens need to hold them accountable, just saying we need to hold them accountable provides no plan of action to hold them accountable.
winningamerica.net also does nothing to hold Deathocrats accountable, it merely provides Deathocrats with advice on how to keep the charade going by providing things for Deathocrats to campaign on and ignores what Deathocrats actually do. We can't make any progress voting on the empty promises of Deathocrats- we have to vote on what they actually do which is provide a false alternative to the Republikillers.
While Deathocrats don't say it when they take big money to run their campaigns they are telling us by their actions that they are working for the big money interests and not for ordinary citizens.
Citizens can hold them accountable by not voting for Deathocrats and participating in One Demand by casting a write in vote to register a vote against the big money Deathocrats and Republikillers in 2022 to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in 2024.
You need to hold yourself accountable for your inaction since 2015 when I first contacted you about One Demand and standing up against the Deathocrats and Republikillers that are enemies of democracy and enemies of ordinary citizens.
And it is up to your listeners to demand that you do it and do it now.
The winningamerica.net Ralph Nader is a pitiful parody of the Ralph Nader that did so much in defense of democracy and ordinary citizens in years past.
winningamerica.net is not good for 2022 or 2024 as you claimed unless you want democracy to die.
winningamerica.net is part of the problem. Citizens need you to instead be part of the solution.
Chris Hedges failed in his "two minutes" when he provided only empty rhetoric and no plan of action. When are you going to provide me with the "two minutes" you promised on Washington Journal (10-24-2018) when you said you would have me on the Radio Hour to discuss a real plan of action provided by One Demand?
Better late than never to provide a plan of action using the basic principle of democracy that you often espouse that politicians want our votes more than they want big money.
Let's put that plan of action into action now to provide citizens with a better alternative to big money Republikillers than the false alternative that is the big money Deathocrats before it is TOO LATE.
All points well taken but i disagree that those organizations, groups and individuals are failing to provide solutions. The solution is all of us on the streets. I am guilty of it, in part - because of disability related issues it is hard for me to be out and about too much - but most of the people who complain are stuck behind their phones and computers, fighting with words and very little context, pretending that speaking the truth to someone they see as ignoring facts will solve the problems. The only thing it does is to boos their ego. There are people on the ground that the media refuses to cover but they are not a big enough crowd that the media cannot ignore. So we keep fighting with words, lazy in a way, but still comfortable enough to not be moved to real action. Once in a while there is a march, but that's a "fun gathering", not part of a strategy to bring about change.
Democrats and republicans are all too happy that we are apathetic like this. They are not affected, they will keep raising money and following the orders of their handlers - the corporate world - and keep building their bunkers waiting for the worse case scenario.
I admire the work people are doing but I am also hopeless that the ones who need to listen and who have some power to do something don't care enough to even take in the demands and advices.
I still call the senators and congressperson who claim to represent me. I go ignored 100% of the time, and it is a chore to keep doing this.
Hi Adriana,
You wrote:
So we keep fighting with words, lazy in a way, but still comfortable enough to not be moved to real action. Once in a while there is a march, but that's a "fun gathering", not part of a strategy to bring about change.
_________
I have no idea how old you are. But I was in grammar school when JF Kennedy was assassinated. Then Martin Luther King, and then RF Kennedy. There were more. Gandhi is one more that comes to mind (India) Also the Black Panthers leaders assassinated, David Koresh Waco Texas where every man women and child was killed at the Branch Davidian Compound. That doesn't mean David Koresh was innocent. It means we will never know. The point is you are not lazy and the movement is not lazy.
Everything cooled off to down right cold after the slaughter of such good people. Then with modern surveillance leaders who are effective and can motivate people to take action are targeted. They are arrested intimidated and much more. Some die accidentally, or suicide (with two shots to the head). This takes most of the steam out of effective public protest.
We here in California fought hard to Label GMOs. We lost by just 2%. We lacked the money that Corporate Food and Agriculture had. Our arguments never made it to the main stream media. But corporate messaging was on the Radio and TV night and day. They said the expense of labeling GMOs (simply label your product as GMO nothing more) was to much to ask Big Food.
I say all this because what you talk about is how to stay alive. Seriously staying alive. Or staying healthy. You are doing a great job. It is very tough these days to do anything against the union of Media, Gov and Corporations.
be well
The groups/organizations and individuals are promising solutions but not actually providing them.
The solution is not in the streets as the powers that be have adapted to the marches/protests using them to manipulate citizens and the media does not cover them as they did in the past.
The solution is to take the protest into the voting booth where it cannot be ignored.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. We need to demand that politicians do not take big money and enforce that demand with our votes.
The Deathocrats and Republikillers are not affected by marches/protests and keep taking big money and following the orders of their handlers because they keep getting citizens to vote for them. If we keep voting for big money candidates we will keep getting big money legislators.
People such as Ralph or Chris Hedges probably do care but have not adapted their strategies as what worked in the sixties does not work now.
"People such as Ralph or Chris Hedges probably do care but have not adapted their strategies as what worked in the sixties does not work now. "
Don, I agree with this statement and I believe it applies to more than just electoral reform. For example, many people, including most progressives, still espouse economic beliefs which might have made sense, and even that is debatable, prior to the Nixon Shock of 1971, but those beliefs are certainly not applicable today. Sadly, this economic ignorance has hamstrung progressive causes and neoliberals have taken advantage of this to their great benefit. This is certainly related to the increasingly uneven electoral playing field since the 1980s, though certainly there is a lot more to things than that.
The Nixon Shock has the capability of being the greatest power progressives have in achieving full employment, single-provider universal healthcare, green technology, and so forth, but progressives must understand how this works or else corporate interests will continue to use this to their great advantage and to the public's disadvantage.
On this note, I believe that Michael Hudson's retort to the commenter from Scotland was a bit off-base factually and, worse, Mr. Hudson's conspiratorial tone made it seem that it is useless for the public to push for progressive policy because the Fed is run by bankers. This is simply not true. If Congress passes progressive policy, it will be funded by the Fed. Period. The issue is Congress is under corporate control, but I see that you have some ideas about how to solve this.
On top of that, one must understand the economic structure to see how progressive policy works. Mr. Nader mentioned in this week's program that Medicare for All was sunk by the Vietnam War and funds needing to be allocated for that. Well, during Johnson's time pre-Nixon Shock, that might have been a hurdle, but it isn't post-Nixon Shock. It takes economic knowledge to understand this though. The RNRH can, and should, cover this better.
That is very true. I fear however that the country is already owned. Candidates that are not selected by wealth will not get on the ticket. If they do and they work contrary to the moneyed interests (very hard now with the massive bureaucratic nest that is the federal government) most seem to get lead poisoning. Though today other types of fatal illness are available.
Whether or not one takes money out of politics. One cannot prevent control of any candidate by big money or the massive bureaucratic federal government. Simply stated "health concerns" become motivators of most of the most honest politicians.
Candidates that are not selected by wealth will not get on the big money Deathocrat and Republikiller tickets which is the purpose of casting the write in vote to create and demonstrate demand for a different ticket.
Without our votes the politicians will be motivated by the "health concerns" of their campaigns as the campaign's will die without our votes.
Our votes are how we control politicians.
Hi Don,
I share your view, and raise you. This is an old idea shared by a much wiser person than me in the mid 1970s. On the ballot there should be a box, NONE OF THE ABOVE. If none of the above wins then that entire slate of candidates is prevented from running during that election cycle.
I look forward to you thoughts.
Casting a write in vote is voting none of the above.
But if you are voting none of the above in the general election then it is too late to prevent anyone from running, though it could in some instances prevent the candidates on the ballot from being elected.
I do not think anyone, including big money candidates, should be prevented from running unless they participate in some form of treason/insurrection.
Hi Don,
I understand your point. Back in the day we discussed this a lot at the time. There is a reason we said they could not run again for that position that election cycle. Why? So the electorate can see a fresh set of faces. See fresh debates etc. Then run the election of that slate for say President. If NONE OF THE ABOVE wins again. Then a completely new slate is presented to the electorate. And so on until someone is elected. Why this process?
If the process is used it means big money can't manipulate the electorate as easily. Just to expensive as the electorate may vote NONE OF THE ABOVE. A new slate means the money spent on the earlier candidate is lost, except for the messaging.
Given todays electronic voting it would be relatively easy to implement such a system. With block chain it would be very hard to stuff the ballot box so to speak.As the years go by at the candidate level it becomes less expensive to run. No longer would money be able to control the message and the candidates.
A bit of a pipe dream. But as in the case of the current election None Of the Above might win by a land slide. Then again it may just be a pipe dream.
@dbkny Why like my comment if you don't agree with it?
Even after Chris Hedges' impassioned explanation of why voting for either of the two war-mongering parties was an act of self-destruction, you still had Mark Green come on and present a way of fooling voters into electing officials whose pre-paid war-mongering will make any of their promises impossible to fulfill. Election Reform to allow Green Party access should have been the next segment, instead. There are no ballot access transgressions that Republicans won't commit against Democrats that, given the chance, Democrats won't commit against Greens.
Hedges is a putin loving neo fascist who repeats the dictators lies about Ukraine. No memtion by il duce Hedges of the ethnic cleansing being carried out by Putin the thug. Pathetic appeaser.
No one is saying Putin's a saint but even so, we don't need to be at war with anybody, let alone Russia.
2020 election song parody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBH-uwZiSqo
Although Klassik is unhappy with the RNRH switch to a corporate platform such as SubStack (SubStack requires arbitration for disputes…it seems odd and inappropriate for an official website related to Mr. Nader to have such a stipulation), Klassik has decided to join SubStack in order to participate here.
Regarding David’s question to Mr. Green about minimum wage: There is certainly reason and need for an increase in minimum wage, but this is where merely increasing minimum wage is not even minimally sufficient policy. The best example I can give of this is what happened when Britain enacted a minimum wage under neoliberal PM Tony Blair. This was discussed in a relatively new book, but I’ve forgotten which one. Sorry about that.
Anyway, the point is that while Blair’s minimum wage was necessary, it proved to be politically unhelpful for Blair’s (New) Labour Party in the long-term. Why? Blair was a neoliberal, like Thatcher, and the country under Blair continued Thatcher’s goals of globalism, corporate deregulation, and the subsequent destruction of labor in the country. A minimum wage is only so helpful when wage-paying jobs are not protected by the government.
Furthermore, while the minimum wage helped the poorest in the country raise from poverty to slightly less impoverished, it did little for those who were making more than the minimum wage, but who were still poor and suffering from degraded public services under neoliberalism. These citizens, along with those who saw their jobs evaporate in the name of short-term corporate profits, grew wary of the New Labour Party and the British Conservative Party has dominated the British political scene since. Does this sound familiar to us Americans? It should because the situation here is not too dissimilar.
Of course, the Conservatives push for the same neoliberalism so they are a bad answer, but their marketing works better. The bottom line, as it relates to those of us in the US, is that an increased minimum wage without increased corporate regulation, a push to increase actual jobs and not ‘gig’ jobs, and a push towards full employment will not lead to better results for the citizens or for anyone even pretending to be a progressive candidate. I’m sorry to say the Biden Administration is doing very little about any of this. Even if there is an increase in minimum wage, the other forms of neoliberalism will just lead citizens to believe right-wing propaganda that the increase in minimum wage leads to inflation, destruction of career-type jobs, and so forth. The only answer to this is comprehensive policy reform and it is that which any progressive candidate, which excludes most national Democrats, must advocate for in campaigns and when they get into office.
I certainly hope David does not take this as criticism. I merely see David’s point as an issue that needs further explanation. Those pushing for progressive policy on labor must understand how economics is on the side of full employment and how livable wages are achievable. A guest specializing in labor economics such as Bill Mitchell would help explain this further beyond what I can add. Most progressives, much less the general population, live in ignorance of this economic knowledge.
Regarding Mr. Hedges’ Book: Thanks for having Mr. Hedges on, he’s usually a good guest. I appreciate the important coverage of foreign policy. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson is another good guest on the RNRH who should not be a stranger to the show. Is there any possibility Anatol Lieven could be scheduled? He’s another usually reliable foreign policy analyst.
Last time RMRH had Chris Hedges on you claimed that RT Russian Today is an independent news outlet when in fact it's a state funding of the Kremlin. In 2016, Putin invited Dr. Jill Stein, Julian Assaunge's father, Rocky Anderson (former mayor of SLC), and Michael Flynn to a 10 year anniversary dinner for RT at the Kremlin sponsor by Putin.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/12/21/that-infamous-moscow-dinner-where-michael-flynn-and-jill-stein-sat-with-putin-utahs-rocky-anderson-was-there-too/
Imperial conquest sucks life blood so we have to face up to it in the most effective and meaningful way. We have to resist it whenever it threatens any part of the world. By doing so In each new and terrifying instance, we have the responsibility to cite and condemn the recent atrocities no matter their origin and cause. Please take a look in the mirror if you condemn US imperial wars for oil but you still drive a car fly, and consume plastic etc.
Don Klepack - There is a Democrat that is anti-war, anti-corporate crime and that is Tulsi Gabbard. Her anti-war against Regime change is obvious. She is also Ant-Coorporate Crime. Gabbard has advocated for financial reform since first running for Congress, including such measures as restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, breaking up too-big-to-fail banks, strengthening protections against predatory lending practices, increasing capital requirements for the nation's largest banks, and banning naked credit default swaps. #TulsiGabbard2024.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpoZmMF6L7I
That women, Tulsi Gabbard is for free speech and she's against regime change. She's for saving American lives. She's says Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. .She's now an independent. Tulsi Gabbard was a democratic but for Free Speech. She's not hateful. She accepts that Trump won in 2016 unlike people in her party that said Trump is an illegitimate president. Right now the democratic party is the Party of hate. Speaking to conservatives does NOT make you a Republican. Trying to elect a Republican whose for Free Speech does not make you a Republican. Attacking Vice President Harris, does not make you a Republican.
Confirmation bias. Also, *Woman.