therealnews--2020-03-07--Climate Crisis: Uber Emissions, Super Polluters, Bipartisan Energy Bill Gets Industry Nod

Welcome to the first edition of The Real News Network ’ s weekly climate news roundup , where we will sift through the top stories on the climate crisis each week .
The climate crisis is a broad topic , which means this roundup will cover everything from new scientific studies , to political and regulatory choices , to grassroots and individual actions .
If you have a story you think should make the list , get in touch with me at [ email protected ] .
Thank you for your interest in The Real News Network and for keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of epochal importance !
A bipartisan legislative effort by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) and ranking member Joe Manchin ( D-WV ) aims to fast track permits for gas exports and provide subsidies for “ clean coal , ” or carbon capture and sequestration projects .
It also would help pave the way for a new petrochemical production corridor in the Appalachian region .
The 555-page bill , called the American Energy Innovation Act , is a compilation of 50 bills previously introduced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( CCS ) is a pricey process linking power plants to the burying of the carbon under the ground , known in industry lingo as sequestration .
Despite numerous attempts at development and billions of dollars in research , most CCS projects have failed .
One of them , owned by Southern Company , went out of business in 2017 after receiving more than $ 700 million in federal subsidies .
The act has received praise from the American Gas Association , the industry front group Consumer Energy Alliance , the American Chemistry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Mining Association , the US Chamber of Commerce , and a slew of others .
The Environmental Defense Fund—considered among the most corporate-friendly of major environmental groups—also lauded the bill .
The bill also has attracted the support of groups like the American Council on Renewable Energy .
The LNG exports provision in the bill , originally introduced as the Small Scale LNG Access Act , has received lobbying support in the past from the Independent Petroleum Association of America , Siemens , and the gas production company EOG Resources , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a producer of small-scale LNG equipment through its subsidiary , Dresser Rand .
It calls for all exports of classified “ small scale ” LNG tankers , which is gas carried on a different type of tanker that is not necessarily smaller in size than those previously regulated by the Natural Gas Act but which fits under a different regulatory category , to be deemed in the “ public interest ” under that law .
Small scale LNG-exports , then , would bypass “ public interest ” regulatory reviews done by the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the bill , the Fossil Energy Utilization , Enhancement , and Leadership Act and the Enhancing Fossil Fuel Energy Carbon Technology Act , have received lobbying support from ExxonMobil , Edison Electric , Southern Company , the Coal Utilization Research Council , and the US Chamber of Commerce .
The two bills are now part of the broader energy legislation aiming to provide federal funding for large-scale CCS pilot projects .
And lobbied for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , the Appalachian Energy for National Security Act provision of the broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Energy to conduct a study on the national security implications of building ethane and other natural-gas-liquids-related petrochemical infrastructure ” in the Appalachian region .
The bill was first introduced by Manchin , a long-time promoter of creating a petrochemical hub in that geographical area akin to the sort causing air quality issues—and worsening the climate crisis—profiled in the Environmental Integrity Project study .
Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the legislation as an alternative to the Green New Deal .
“ The Green New Deal sought to have Washington D.C. micromanage everyday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the 20th-century socialists would have drooled over , ” he said in a March 3 speech made on the Senate floor .
“ Instead , this bipartisan legislation will create better policy and regulatory conditions for American workers , American innovators , and American job creators to thrive.
” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is on-board , as well , calling for support of the bill during March 2 remarks on the Senate floor .
“ This bill provides a real test for Senate Republicans , ” said Schumer .
“ Will they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passing bipartisan legislation that will address climate change in a significant way , or will our Republican friends continue to do what they have done for the last several years—do the bidding of corporate polluters and Big Oil ?
” A study released on Feb. 25 by the Union of Concerned Scientists ( UCS ) concluded that ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft have become major contributors to the United States ’ greenhouse gas emissions inventory .
Titled “ Ride-Hailing ’ s Climate Risks Steering a Growing Industry toward a Clean Transportation Future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ride-hailing trips today result in an estimated 69 percent more climate pollution on average than the trips they displace ” and that “ a non-pooled ride-hailing trip is 47 percent more polluting than a private car ride.
” This is mostly due to deadheading , or driving around and idling without passengers in the vehicle .
Ride-hailing is also compared to the taxi industry in the study , with the former industry rendering the latter somewhat obsolete .
Taxis are causing less emissions than ride sharing , but mostly because they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and thus UCS says its recommendations apply to both industries .
The report calls for the industry to shift toward using more electric vehicles and more mandated carpooling , plus more integration into public transit networks .
Uber has a different take on things , though .
Last April , the company stated in its initial public offering that it would like to “ rapidly scale our network in new cities by attracting consumers to our platform and away from personal vehicles or public transportation ” ( emphases mine ) .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kansas City , Missouri ( and a recent proposal by Washington , DC ) and even countries like Luxembourg are moving toward free public transit .
And like many issues of who causes the climate crisis , a recent study points out that ride-hailing is used most regularly by people with greater wealth .
The companies themselves , meanwhile , are pouring $ 90 million into a ballot measure in California for the upcoming November election which would undo a law aimed at stopping them from exploiting their workers by misclassifying them as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California ’ s Air Resources Board is currently considering regulations called the Clean Miles Standard to crack down on ride-hailing companies ’ emissions .
Another new report published on Feb. 26 commissioned by the United Church of Christ and published by the Environmental Integrity Project analyzed US Environmental Protection Agency air quality data , and found that air quality impacts are felt the most acutely by people of color nationwide .
The report examined the air impacts of ‘ Toxic 100 ’ company production sites , or those releasing the highest amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These 100 companies create 39 % of the country ’ s toxic air emissions , as categorized by the EPA ’ s Toxic Release Inventory .
“ At the national level , the percentage of people of color or Hispanics or Latinos , low-income residents , and children under five living within one mile of the Toxic 100 were all higher than national averages , ” the report explains .
“ Forty-four percent of the population is low income , which is significantly higher than the national average of just under 33 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Hispanic or Latino , while the national average is 38 percent.
” Four of the top 10 most toxic sites pinpointed in the report are in the petrochemical production industry , an industry on the rise in the United States as the hydraulic fracturing ( ‘ fracking ’ ) for boom has created a market demand for more plastics .
Of the locations surveyed , the Houston area was found to contain the greatest number of facilities run by companies on the Toxic 100 list .
The Houston Ship Channel is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas and petrochemical refining in the United States .
The report ’ s release coincides with the Trump Administration doubling down on oil exports in the region in the name of “ energy dominance , ” and giving $ 17.6 million from the Maritime Administration to beef up an export terminal dock in Corpus Christi , Texas .
Record amounts of petroleum products are being exported from the Houston region to the global market in the aftermath of President Barack Obama lifting the crude oil exports ban in 2015 .
A recent study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenpeace USA concluded that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from reinstating the export ban would equate to the impact of closing between 19 and 42 coal-fired power plants .
On average , the CO2 emissions from one hour of burning coal amount to driving a Honda Civic hybrid about 4,000 miles , meaning that annually , an average coal-fired power plant emits the CO2 equivalent of driving a Honda Civic hybrid 35 million miles per year .
The report concludes that since Obama reversed the ban , exports have grown over 750 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s official : The climate crisis made Australia ’ s bushfires much worse .
That ’ s according to a new study conducted by a group of 13 climate scientists , who found that climate change-fueled weather conditions increased the odds of an extreme fire by at least 30 % .
“ We found that it was at least 30 percent , but it ’ s likely much higher because the models underestimate extreme heat trends , one of the very important parts of the equation , ” one of the authors explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildfires—which burned in Australia from November 2019 to February 2020—scorched 73,000 square miles of land , equivalent to the size of Nebraska .
In the process , the fires killed at least 34 people and 1.5 billion animals .
The Guardian reported that if global temperatures rise to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial global temperature , the predicted weather conditions make another wildfire of the size recently seen Down Under eight times more likely .

Welcome to the first edition of The Real News Network’s weekly climate news roundup, where we will sift through the top stories on the climate crisis each week. The climate crisis is a broad topic, which means this roundup will cover everything from new scientific studies, to political and regulatory choices, to grassroots and individual actions. If you have a story you think should make the list, get in touch with me at steve@therealnews.com.
Thank you for your interest in The Real News Network and for keeping up with our work covering this issue of epochal importance!
Senate Pushes LNG Exports, ‘Clean Coal,’ Petrochemicals
A bipartisan legislative effort by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and ranking member Joe Manchin (D-WV) aims to fast track permits for gas exports and provide subsidies for “clean coal,” or carbon capture and sequestration projects. It also would help pave the way for a new petrochemical production corridor in the Appalachian region. The 555-page bill, called the American Energy Innovation Act, is a compilation of 50 bills previously introduced by the committee.
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a pricey process linking power plants to the burying of the carbon under the ground, known in industry lingo as sequestration. Despite numerous attempts at development and billions of dollars in research, most CCS projects have failed. One of them, owned by Southern Company, went out of business in 2017 after receiving more than $700 million in federal subsidies.
The act has received praise from the American Gas Association, the industry front group Consumer Energy Alliance, the American Chemistry Council, the petrochemical trade association, the National Mining Association, the US Chamber of Commerce, and a slew of others. The Environmental Defense Fund—considered among the most corporate-friendly of major environmental groups—also lauded the bill. The bill also has attracted the support of groups like the American Council on Renewable Energy.
The LNG exports provision in the bill, originally introduced as the Small Scale LNG Access Act, has received lobbying support in the past from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Siemens, and the gas production company EOG Resources, according to disclosure forms. Siemens is a producer of small-scale LNG equipment through its subsidiary, Dresser Rand. It calls for all exports of classified “small scale” LNG tankers, which is gas carried on a different type of tanker that is not necessarily smaller in size than those previously regulated by the Natural Gas Act but which fits under a different regulatory category, to be deemed in the “public interest” under that law. Small scale LNG-exports, then, would bypass “public interest” regulatory reviews done by the US Department of Energy.
Image courtesy of Congress.gov
Two CCS portions of the bill, the Fossil Energy Utilization, Enhancement, and Leadership Act and the Enhancing Fossil Fuel Energy Carbon Technology Act, have received lobbying support from ExxonMobil, Edison Electric, Southern Company, the Coal Utilization Research Council, and the US Chamber of Commerce. The two bills are now part of the broader energy legislation aiming to provide federal funding for large-scale CCS pilot projects.
And lobbied for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Appalachian Energy for National Security Act provision of the broader energy bill calls on the “Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on the national security implications of building ethane and other natural-gas-liquids-related petrochemical infrastructure” in the Appalachian region. The bill was first introduced by Manchin, a long-time promoter of creating a petrochemical hub in that geographical area akin to the sort causing air quality issues—and worsening the climate crisis—profiled in the Environmental Integrity Project study.
Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the legislation as an alternative to the Green New Deal.
“The Green New Deal sought to have Washington D.C. micromanage everyday life in this country to a degree that the 20th-century socialists would have drooled over,” he said in a March 3 speech made on the Senate floor. “Instead, this bipartisan legislation will create better policy and regulatory conditions for American workers, American innovators, and American job creators to thrive.”
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is on-board, as well, calling for support of the bill during March 2 remarks on the Senate floor.
“This bill provides a real test for Senate Republicans,” said Schumer. “Will they join Senate Democrats in fighting for and passing bipartisan legislation that will address climate change in a significant way, or will our Republican friends continue to do what they have done for the last several years—do the bidding of corporate polluters and Big Oil?”
Über Ridesharing Emissions
A study released on Feb. 25 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) concluded that ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft have become major contributors to the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Titled “Ride-Hailing’s Climate Risks Steering a Growing Industry toward a Clean Transportation Future,” the report concludes that “Ride-hailing trips today result in an estimated 69 percent more climate pollution on average than the trips they displace” and that “a non-pooled ride-hailing trip is 47 percent more polluting than a private car ride.” This is mostly due to deadheading, or driving around and idling without passengers in the vehicle.
Image courtesy of Union of Concerned Scientists
Ride-hailing is also compared to the taxi industry in the study, with the former industry rendering the latter somewhat obsolete. Taxis are causing less emissions than ride sharing, but mostly because they’re being used less, the study concludes, and thus UCS says its recommendations apply to both industries.
Image courtesy of Union of Concerned Scientists
The report calls for the industry to shift toward using more electric vehicles and more mandated carpooling, plus more integration into public transit networks. Uber has a different take on things, though.
Last April, the company stated in its initial public offering that it would like to “rapidly scale our network in new cities by attracting consumers to our platform and away from personal vehicles or public transportation” (emphases mine). As Uber takes that stance, cities like Kansas City, Missouri (and a recent proposal by Washington, DC) and even countries like Luxembourg are moving toward free public transit.
And like many issues of who causes the climate crisis, a recent study points out that ride-hailing is used most regularly by people with greater wealth. The companies themselves, meanwhile, are pouring $90 million into a ballot measure in California for the upcoming November election which would undo a law aimed at stopping them from exploiting their workers by misclassifying them as independent contractors. Coming full circle, California’s Air Resources Board is currently considering regulations called the Clean Miles Standard to crack down on ride-hailing companies’ emissions.
‘Toxic 100’ Environmental Justice Map
Another new report published on Feb. 26 commissioned by the United Church of Christ and published by the Environmental Integrity Project analyzed US Environmental Protection Agency air quality data, and found that air quality impacts are felt the most acutely by people of color nationwide. The report examined the air impacts of ‘Toxic 100’ company production sites, or those releasing the highest amount of toxic—and sometimes carcinogenic—pollutants into the atmosphere. These 100 companies create 39% of the country’s toxic air emissions, as categorized by the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory.
“At the national level, the percentage of people of color or Hispanics or Latinos, low-income residents, and children under five living within one mile of the Toxic 100 were all higher than national averages,” the report explains. “Forty-four percent of the population is low income, which is significantly higher than the national average of just under 33 percent. Forty percent are people of color or Hispanic or Latino, while the national average is 38 percent.”
Four of the top 10 most toxic sites pinpointed in the report are in the petrochemical production industry, an industry on the rise in the United States as the hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) for boom has created a market demand for more plastics. Of the locations surveyed, the Houston area was found to contain the greatest number of facilities run by companies on the Toxic 100 list. The Houston Ship Channel is one of the key epicenters for oil, gas and petrochemical refining in the United States.
Image courtesy of Energy Integrity Project
The report’s release coincides with the Trump Administration doubling down on oil exports in the region in the name of “energy dominance,” and giving $17.6 million from the Maritime Administration to beef up an export terminal dock in Corpus Christi, Texas. Record amounts of petroleum products are being exported from the Houston region to the global market in the aftermath of President Barack Obama lifting the crude oil exports ban in 2015.
A recent study by the groups Oil Change International and Greenpeace USA concluded that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from reinstating the export ban would equate to the impact of closing between 19 and 42 coal-fired power plants. On average, the CO2 emissions from one hour of burning coal amount to driving a Honda Civic hybrid about 4,000 miles, meaning that annually, an average coal-fired power plant emits the CO2 equivalent of driving a Honda Civic hybrid 35 million miles per year. The report concludes that since Obama reversed the ban, exports have grown over 750%.
Climate Crisis Worsened Aussie Fires Crisis
And lastly, it’s official: The climate crisis made Australia’s bushfires much worse. That’s according to a new study conducted by a group of 13 climate scientists, who found that climate change-fueled weather conditions increased the odds of an extreme fire by at least 30%.
“We found that it was at least 30 percent, but it’s likely much higher because the models underestimate extreme heat trends, one of the very important parts of the equation,” one of the authors explained to InsideClimate News.
The historically huge wildfires—which burned in Australia from November 2019 to February 2020—scorched 73,000 square miles of land, equivalent to the size of Nebraska. In the process, the fires killed at least 34 people and 1.5 billion animals. The Guardian reported that if global temperatures rise to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial global temperature, the predicted weather conditions make another wildfire of the size recently seen Down Under eight times more likely.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-06--Netflix’s ‘Fauda’ Is a Hit Because of its Islamophobia, Not In Spite of It

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Close window X
Republish this article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.
Netflix’s ‘Fauda’ Is a Hit Because of its Islamophobia, Not In Spite of It
Netflix’s ‘Fauda’ Is a Hit Because of its Islamophobia, Not In Spite of It by TRNN, The Real News Network March 6, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly76V7f_JxU ‘Fauda,’ an Israeli show about soldiers who disguise themselves as Palestinians, subtly reinforces Islamophobic stereotypes and justifies state violence by promising to humanize both sides of the conflict. Production: Shir Hever, Cameron GranadinoPost-Production: Cameron Granadino This article first appeared on The Real News Network and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Copy to Clipboard


therealnews--2020-03-06--Obama Laid the Foundation for Trump’s Attack on Bedrock Environmental Law

Steve Horn is a San Diego-based climate reporter and producer. He was also a reporter on a part-time basis for The Coast News—covering Escondido, San Marcos, and the San Diego North County region—from mid-2018 until early 2020.
Also a freelance investigative reporter, his work has appeared in The Guardian, Al Jazeera America, The Intercept, Vice News, Wisconsin Watch, and other publications. He worked from 2011-2018 for the climate news website DeSmog.com, a publication which investigates climate change disinformation and the fossil fuel industry influence campaigns.
His stories and research have received citation in a U.S. Senate report and mention in outlets such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, Bloomberg Businessweek, Mexico’s La Jornada, and The Colbert Report.
In his free time, Steve is a competitive distance runner, with a personal best time in the marathon of 2:43:04 and a 4:43 mile. He also has served on the film screening committee for the Heartland Film Festival in Indianapolis and serves on the screening committee for the San Diego International Film Festival.


therealnews--2020-03-06--Will Trump’s Surrender to the Taliban Bring an End to an Endless War?

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
George W. Bush : On my orders , the United States military has begun strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan .
Speaker 2 : The United States military is doing a fantastic job .
Barack Obama : America ’ s war in Afghanistan will come to a responsible end .
Donald Trump : It ’ s nice to know that you ’ re fighting for something that is doing well , as opposed to something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of years ago .
Marc Steiner : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Marc Steiner .
Yes , it ’ s been almost 20 years .
And on Sunday , the United States signed what ’ s called a truce with the Taliban in Doha .
But without the Afghan government involved , and seemingly at the request of the Taliban .
Is this really a step forward to bringing an end to a war which has lasted almost 20 years ?
Part of the accord was the agreement calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government prisoners of war .
But Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said , “ No.
” And not long after , the Taliban attacked .
And then after the signing of the truce , U.S .
Troops and Afghan government forces attacked again as if the truce was never signed , claiming the lives of over 16 people .
And this all happened over the course of the last few days .
President Trump seems to be going after American public opinion that there ’ s going to be a retreat from Afghanistan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most recent Make America Great rally , he said this .
Donald Trump : Two days ago , the United States signed a deal with the Taliban , so that after 19 years of conflict and very close to 20 , we can finally begin to bring our amazing troops back home .
After years of rebuilding foreign nations , we are finally rebuilding our nation and taking care of our own American citizens .
And all of the things that we ’ ve done .
We ’ ve wiped out terrorists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And you know what ?
We ’ re 8,000 miles away .
You got a lot of big countries surrounding Afghanistan .
You ’ ve got Afghanistan , itself .
Marc Steiner : And Trump also spoke with a Taliban leader , who he thought was the leader of the Taliban , Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar .
Saying as he would often say , “ We actually had a very good talk with the leader of the Taliban.
” Well , the madness of this war must end .
The question is how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Retired U.S. Army Major , Danny Sjursen , wrote an article called Happy Afghanistan Surrender Day for Truthdig a few days ago .
He served both in Iraq and Afghanistan .
He ’ s an author , speaker , podcaster , and activist .
His latest book coming up is Patriotic Dissent : America in the Age of Endless War , and joins us once again .
Welcome back , Danny .
Good to have you .
Danny Sjursen : Oh , thanks so much .
Always a pleasure .
Marc Steiner : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Taliban , refusing to negotiate with the Afghan government , saying the Afghan President ’ s of puppet .
I think it ’ s more complex than that .
Trump accepted this and negotiated on their behalf , but there were no representatives there .
The question is , where does this really lead ?
Does this really lead to an end to a war ?
I mean , is the Afghan government really not part of this ?
How do you see this unfolding ?
Danny Sjursen : Well you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predict how this unfolds .
I will say that any principle , conceptually… I agree with the President ’ s idea that it is time to go .
That a withdrawal has been long appropriate , right ?
We should have probably withdrawn long ago .
What ’ s unclear is the sincerity of the American position , how long this will hold , if at all .
And then there ’ s also this gap .
This interesting dynamic where for the longest time , two presidential administrations , 16 years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Taliban .
If you want to negotiate , you got to negotiate with the sovereign government in Kabul that we helped install.
” And the Taliban said , “ No , we won ’ t deal with them.
” Well , in 2018 , there was a major pivot in American policy under Trump , where we said , “ Okay , we will have a bilateral negotiation with the Taliban.
” And this is the output of that , or the initial output of that .
But I think what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being flippant when I said Afghan Surrender Day .
I don ’ t think it ’ s all that simple .
Right ?
Danny Sjursen : But I think that this 2018 moment when we said we will talk just to the Taliban , and basically cut out the Afghan government .
That was the moment really , where the United States first accepted , I would argue , some version of defeat .
Just accepted that they had not , we had not achieved our goals , and something new had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in principle .
I do so cautiously , and understanding that there are limitations in maybe sincerity or practicality .
And also , there are going to be victims on the Afghan side that I ’ m concerned about as well .
Marc Steiner : Well , let me pick up on that point .
We ’ re going to jump after this to George Bush and talk about what he said many years ago , and where this leaves us today .
But what you just said , I mean , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a total puppet of the United States .
I think it ’ s much more nuanced than that .
Ashraf Ghani saying , “ No , I ’ m not going to participate in this .
He ’ s part of that.
” But they are a weak government .
They ’ re in some of the urban areas .
They don ’ t control a great deal of their own country .
But the question becomes , if the United States goes into a country like Afghanistan , like Iraq , tears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after that to the people that we leave behind ?
By that , I mean the women I ’ ve interviewed as we talked with them on the air .
I talked to a number of women from the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women , RAWA , over the years .
And one of their questions is , “ You ’ re going to leave us to be burglarized all over again ?
” And not that they support the U.S. invasion , but there ’ s a complexity to this .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tons people behind in Vietnam .
Or the Iraqi interpreters we left behind .
I mean , I think those questions , even if you oppose these wars as imperialistic interventions that shouldn ’ t happen , what about that aspect of it ?
Danny Sjursen : I mean , I ’ m of two minds about this .
I call it head and heart .
Right ?
Heart says , I ’ m for female education .
I ’ m for secular values in government .
And I ’ m not for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Taliban oftentimes to be abhorrent .
I am concerned for those who worked with us , just like I was in Iraq .
Now , the question is , here ’ s where the head comes in .
Danny Sjursen : Are we going to get caught in a trap ?
What I mean is , there is a sunken cost trap where you say , “ Well , we can ’ t leave , because too many people have worked with us who will now be at risk .
We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave then the women in Kabul would be at risk if the Taliban takes over.
” But the problem with that is… A , just logically , it ’ s a formula for potentially forever war since we have not shown the capacity to win .
Because we ’ re in a worse position militarily than we have been ever in the war , just empirically .
Right ?
Provincial control .
And then the second thing that comes from that is the question , do we even possess the capability to meaningfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would submit , no .
And that whether we leave today or 10 years from now , the general outcome is probably the same .
So what can we do ?
Well , it ’ s very limited .
Besides economic aid and actually opening our borders to these folks who did work for us or to political refugees .
Short of doing that , there ’ s not a whole lot we can do .
But you know what ’ s interesting is , we ’ re dealing with a government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
I mean , there were immigration problems before him .
But you know , we ’ re dealing with an administration or a U.S. Government that will destroy these societies or contribute to destroying these societies , and then close our borders to the very same folks if they ’ re vaguely brown and/or Muslim .
And it ’ s just the cynicism of that , I think .
It ’ s ultimately counterproductive in the region .
It makes us look bad .
But I don ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rights or the education trap , where we stay forever .
I don ’ t think we can achieve much more than holding the major cities , especially with just 14,000 soldiers .
Marc Steiner : Yeah .
I ’ m sorry , go ahead .
I didn ’ t mean to cut you off .
Danny Sjursen : No , that ’ s exactly it .
I mean , I really don ’ t think that we have… I think we overestimate America ’ s ability in the world in general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaningfully alter things or just matters on the ground .
The agency really tends to belong to the Taliban and to a lesser extent , the Afghan government .
You want a prediction , historical prediction ?
Najibullah , who was the communist leader of Afghanistan , who the Russians had helped keep in power… When they left in 1988 , everyone expected that he would fall right away to the Mujahideen , which some of whom became the Taliban .
He actually held on for I believe , like four years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid and economic aid .
And also , because there were people who legitimately believed in communism and reform , and modernization in gender relations in Afghanistan .
He held on for about four years .
Of course , he ’ s eventually hung after he hides out in an embassy .
My prediction is that I don ’ t think the Taliban is going to take over tomorrow , but we ’ re going to see probably some version of another short bloody civil war .
I wouldn ’ t be too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way of Najibullah , unfortunately .
Marc Steiner : I think you ’ re not far wrong .
I think actually , you ’ re right .
Not far wrong , I think you ’ re right that the Fatwa could happen after this .
And you know what ?
I think if you look at it historically , whether it ’ s the British in the 19th century , or whether it ’ s the Russians , or whether it ’ s us in this century , no one has ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean , you battle the Pashtuns at your own risk , and that ’ s always been the historical case .
Look at this , this is what George Bush had to say in 2010 .
I really want to play this one moment to grapple with something .
George W. Bush : I said a long time ago , one of our objectives is to smoke them out and get them running , and bring them to justice .
We ’ re smoking them out , they ’ re running .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring them to justice .
I also said we ’ ll use whatever means necessary to achieve that objective , and that ’ s exactly what we ’ re going to do .
The American people must understand that we ’ ve got a long way to go in order to achieve our objective in this theater .
But we ’ re patient , we ’ re resolved , and we will stay the course until we achieve our objective .
Marc Steiner : So as you and I both know , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It made no sense , the way this war was fought .
And as I think I told you in an email earlier as I was preparing for this program , I interviewed Karzai just when Efe was dropped off in a cave in Afghanistan at the very beginning .
It was insane from that moment on .
So I ’ m curious , you wrote it really eloquently in your piece about the soldiers , the men under your command , the officers who fought with you and what their responses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were further to the right .
So talk a bit about that .
I mean , what does this say to us in America and the men and women who fought there , and the men and women in the Afghan , men who were killed in this process , and just where we are now ?
How does that fit into the definition of this moment ?
Danny Sjursen : Bush ’ s speech that you played is just like an exercise in simplification .
Right ?
I mean , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All this kind of language .
It just simplifies it into a morality tale .
Right ?
Danny Sjursen : The dichotomy , Manichean sort of thing .
Actually , it ’ s really complex , and it ’ s a great American and a great Afghan tragedy .
For the Afghans , it ’ s a tragedy that really starts in 1973 .
For the United States , it ’ s a tragedy that at least for our soldiers , starts in 2001 .
So on Sunday , the day that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I was just being a dad at a basketball tournament .
On a whole other subject , on another research topic .
I reached out via text , a mass text , to the nine lieutenants who worked for me in Afghanistan .
And I made a joke , “ Happy Afghan Surrender Day.
” Which became the title of my article that I wrote hours later .
And you know , it was remarkable that this group of guys who ranged from maybe one center-left guy , to mostly moderate Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were all in favor conceptually , of withdrawing from Afghanistan… To a man , and they ’ re all men , to a man .
Which I thought was pretty remarkable , 19 years into the war .
Because these are combat guys , most of whom have lost soldiers there .
So one might expect that they would see this deal as a betrayal , as a bad surrender .
And I got some flippant jokes , responses .
But all of them were of the vain that , “ Look , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t , we got to go.
” And you know , “ Maybe we ’ re not so sure that this deal is going to hold .
But in principle , we support it.
” So I think that does speak to where we ’ re at in this great American and also mainly Afghan tragedy , is that the simplicity , the duality of good and evil that Bush laid down in practice , it ’ s just proven to be a mess .
And I hope that that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
But I hope that that ’ s the lesson moving forward that ’ s taken from this history , because something good… I have to believe something good comes of this war on terror absurdity .
I ’ m not so sure , but I think that the polls that show that more veterans are against the war in Afghanistan than civilians , is a very instructive , rare , and unique moment in American history .
Marc Steiner : So let me conclude with this idea here .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last day was that Fatou Bensouda , who is the head of the International Criminal Court , said there will be an investigation about war crimes against the U.S. and the Taliban in Afghanistan .
You think this feeds into that at all ?
And what ’ s your response to that as someone who ’ s served ?
Danny Sjursen : There are people within the military who distrust international institutions .
And of course , like the ICC , like the United Nations .
If you want to hear people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find that is in the military , particularly even in the officer ranks .
But this is an American phenomenon , and it ’ s not just the Trump thing .
This distrust , this unwillingness to play by international norms , many of which were initially founded under our auspices in the aftermath of World War II .
But the problem was that once organizations like the ICC and the United nations started to be critical of American imperial policy , then we threw our hands up and said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a full investigation .
I ’ m all about the truth .
I believe that there is such a thing as universal human rights .
Well , you know what ’ s interesting about all of this is… I think that it ’ s great that the ICC is looking at all three parties , because I believe the Afghan government is also under investigation .
Marc Steiner : Yes , they are .
Danny Sjursen : As they should be .
Danny Sjursen : As someone who has witnessed war crimes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Okay ?
I think that all parties should be involved .
One thing to remember is that legislation was passed not too long ago by the U.S. Congress , that basically said that we will go as far as up to military force to invade the Hague if necessary , to take an American soldier or an American citizen who is being held there .
We are so far along the road , this is a true thing , that we are not willing to subject our citizens or our soldiers to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world .
Now one might look at that and say , “ Hey , we ’ re not going to get a fair trial.
” Or , “ We ’ re exceptional .
We ’ re great.
” But here ’ s the thing .
How do you think that plays on the Arab street , on the Afghan street , or anywhere in the world ?
It plays as American hypocrisy , and it builds anti-American sentiment .
Or as we like to simplify , it grows terrorists .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusal to play ball , refusal to accept even an investigation for the most part into itself , it ’ s ultimately counterproductive .
And oh , by the way , unethical .
Marc Steiner : I guess we can close with this .
I mean , it makes me think of what you said a little bit ago , which is… What have we learned ?
When you think about what happened in Vietnam , and now Afghanistan and Iraq , we have not learned very much .
And as you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a sense gotten worse in terms of what our inability is to even be part of the international dialogue to create a more humane world .
So I mean , I think this is a very telling and also very trying , and in many ways , frightening moment .
Danny Sjursen : Absolutely .
Look , the United States is an imperial entity .
And in history , they are defined by three things .
Triumphalism , chauvinism .
The thing is to keep in mind , this is not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right ?
Exceptionalism , triumphalism , chauvinism .
This does not please the people that we ’ re trying to get on our side .
And I fear that we are going to miss out on the lessons of this , just like we did in Vietnam .
Who knows where the next theater of American war on a concept will be ?
Marc Steiner : Danny Sjursen , thank you so much once again for joining us .
I look forward to reading more of your work and having you back again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You too , take care .
And I ’ m Marc Steiner , here for the Real News Network .
Thank you for joining us .
Let us know what you think , what you want to know about .
Take care .

Americans on right and left want this war to end, but will our imperial leaders ever learn the lessons of Vietnam and Afghanistan?
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
George W. Bush: On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: The United States military is doing a fantastic job.
Barack Obama: America’s war in Afghanistan will come to a responsible end.
Donald Trump: It’s nice to know that you’re fighting for something that is doing well, as opposed to something that was not doing well just a number of years ago.
Marc Steiner: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Yes, it’s been almost 20 years. And on Sunday, the United States signed what’s called a truce with the Taliban in Doha. But without the Afghan government involved, and seemingly at the request of the Taliban. Is this really a step forward to bringing an end to a war which has lasted almost 20 years? Part of the accord was the agreement calling for the release of Taliban and Afghan government prisoners of war. But Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said, “No.” And not long after, the Taliban attacked. And then after the signing of the truce, U.S. Troops and Afghan government forces attacked again as if the truce was never signed, claiming the lives of over 16 people. And this all happened over the course of the last few days. President Trump seems to be going after American public opinion that there’s going to be a retreat from Afghanistan. And as we can hear in his most recent Make America Great rally, he said this.
Donald Trump: Two days ago, the United States signed a deal with the Taliban, so that after 19 years of conflict and very close to 20, we can finally begin to bring our amazing troops back home. After years of rebuilding foreign nations, we are finally rebuilding our nation and taking care of our own American citizens. And all of the things that we’ve done. We’ve wiped out terrorists, we’ve done so much. And you know what? We’re 8,000 miles away. You got a lot of big countries surrounding Afghanistan. You’ve got Afghanistan, itself.
Marc Steiner: And Trump also spoke with a Taliban leader, who he thought was the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. Saying as he would often say, “We actually had a very good talk with the leader of the Taliban.” Well, the madness of this war must end. The question is how, and will this do it? Retired U.S. Army Major, Danny Sjursen, wrote an article called Happy Afghanistan Surrender Day for Truthdig a few days ago. He served both in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s an author, speaker, podcaster, and activist. His latest book coming up is Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War, and joins us once again. Welcome back, Danny. Good to have you.
Danny Sjursen: Oh, thanks so much. Always a pleasure.
Marc Steiner: Mine too. So here we have the Taliban, refusing to negotiate with the Afghan government, saying the Afghan President’s of puppet. I think it’s more complex than that. Trump accepted this and negotiated on their behalf, but there were no representatives there. The question is, where does this really lead? Does this really lead to an end to a war? I mean, is the Afghan government really not part of this? How do you see this unfolding?
Danny Sjursen: Well you know, it’s really hard to predict how this unfolds. I will say that any principle, conceptually… I agree with the President’s idea that it is time to go. That a withdrawal has been long appropriate, right? We should have probably withdrawn long ago. What’s unclear is the sincerity of the American position, how long this will hold, if at all. And then there’s also this gap. This interesting dynamic where for the longest time, two presidential administrations, 16 years, the United States said, “Listen, Taliban. If you want to negotiate, you got to negotiate with the sovereign government in Kabul that we helped install.” And the Taliban said, “No, we won’t deal with them.” Well, in 2018, there was a major pivot in American policy under Trump, where we said, “Okay, we will have a bilateral negotiation with the Taliban.” And this is the output of that, or the initial output of that. But I think what’s lost is realizing… I was purposely being flippant when I said Afghan Surrender Day. I don’t think it’s all that simple. Right?
Marc Steiner: Right.
Danny Sjursen: But I think that this 2018 moment when we said we will talk just to the Taliban, and basically cut out the Afghan government. That was the moment really, where the United States first accepted, I would argue, some version of defeat. Just accepted that they had not, we had not achieved our goals, and something new had to be tried. I actually support that in principle. I do so cautiously, and understanding that there are limitations in maybe sincerity or practicality. And also, there are going to be victims on the Afghan side that I’m concerned about as well.
Marc Steiner: Well, let me pick up on that point. We’re going to jump after this to George Bush and talk about what he said many years ago, and where this leaves us today. But what you just said, I mean, some people look at the Afghan government as a total puppet of the United States. I think it’s much more nuanced than that. Ashraf Ghani saying, “No, I’m not going to participate in this. He’s part of that.” But they are a weak government. They’re in some of the urban areas. They don’t control a great deal of their own country.
But the question becomes, if the United States goes into a country like Afghanistan, like Iraq, tears it asunder, what is our responsibility after that to the people that we leave behind? By that, I mean the women I’ve interviewed as we talked with them on the air. I talked to a number of women from the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women, RAWA, over the years. And one of their questions is, “You’re going to leave us to be burglarized all over again?” And not that they support the U.S. invasion, but there’s a complexity to this. It’s like Vietnam. We left tons people behind in Vietnam. Or the Iraqi interpreters we left behind. I mean, I think those questions, even if you oppose these wars as imperialistic interventions that shouldn’t happen, what about that aspect of it?
Danny Sjursen: I mean, I’m of two minds about this. I call it head and heart. Right? Heart says, I’m for female education. I’m for secular values in government. And I’m not for beheading. So certainly, I find the Taliban oftentimes to be abhorrent. I am concerned for those who worked with us, just like I was in Iraq. Now, the question is, here’s where the head comes in.
Marc Steiner: Right.
Danny Sjursen: Are we going to get caught in a trap? What I mean is, there is a sunken cost trap where you say, “Well, we can’t leave, because too many people have worked with us who will now be at risk. We can’t leave, because if we leave then the women in Kabul would be at risk if the Taliban takes over.” But the problem with that is… A, just logically, it’s a formula for potentially forever war since we have not shown the capacity to win. Because we’re in a worse position militarily than we have been ever in the war, just empirically. Right? Provincial control.
And then the second thing that comes from that is the question, do we even possess the capability to meaningfully alter the ultimate outcome in Afghanistan? I would submit, no. And that whether we leave today or 10 years from now, the general outcome is probably the same. So what can we do? Well, it’s very limited. Besides economic aid and actually opening our borders to these folks who did work for us or to political refugees. Short of doing that, there’s not a whole lot we can do. But you know what’s interesting is, we’re dealing with a government, and it’s not just Trump. I mean, there were immigration problems before him.
But you know, we’re dealing with an administration or a U.S. Government that will destroy these societies or contribute to destroying these societies, and then close our borders to the very same folks if they’re vaguely brown and/or Muslim. And it’s just the cynicism of that, I think. It’s ultimately counterproductive in the region. It makes us look bad. But I don’t want to get caught up in the women’s rights or the education trap, where we stay forever. I don’t think we can achieve much more than holding the major cities, especially with just 14,000 soldiers.
Marc Steiner: And I agree.
Danny Sjursen: And I-
Marc Steiner: Yeah. I’m sorry, go ahead. I didn’t mean to cut you off.
Danny Sjursen: No, that’s exactly it. I mean, I really don’t think that we have… I think we overestimate America’s ability in the world in general, but especially in Afghanistan, to meaningfully alter things or just matters on the ground. The agency really tends to belong to the Taliban and to a lesser extent, the Afghan government. You want a prediction, historical prediction? Najibullah, who was the communist leader of Afghanistan, who the Russians had helped keep in power… When they left in 1988, everyone expected that he would fall right away to the Mujahideen, which some of whom became the Taliban. He actually held on for I believe, like four years.
Marc Steiner: Right.
Danny Sjursen: With some Russian military aid and economic aid. And also, because there were people who legitimately believed in communism and reform, and modernization in gender relations in Afghanistan. He held on for about four years. Of course, he’s eventually hung after he hides out in an embassy. My prediction is that I don’t think the Taliban is going to take over tomorrow, but we’re going to see probably some version of another short bloody civil war. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the government in Kabul goes the way of Najibullah, unfortunately.
Marc Steiner: I think you’re not far wrong. I think actually, you’re right. Not far wrong, I think you’re right that the Fatwa could happen after this. And you know what? I think if you look at it historically, whether it’s the British in the 19th century, or whether it’s the Russians, or whether it’s us in this century, no one has ever been able to handle Afghanistan. I mean, you battle the Pashtuns at your own risk, and that’s always been the historical case. Look at this, this is what George Bush had to say in 2010. I really want to play this one moment to grapple with something.
George W. Bush: I said a long time ago, one of our objectives is to smoke them out and get them running, and bring them to justice. We’re smoking them out, they’re running. And now, we’re going to bring them to justice. I also said we’ll use whatever means necessary to achieve that objective, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. The American people must understand that we’ve got a long way to go in order to achieve our objective in this theater. But we’re patient, we’re resolved, and we will stay the course until we achieve our objective.
Marc Steiner: So as you and I both know, this war was BS from the very beginning. It made no sense, the way this war was fought. And as I think I told you in an email earlier as I was preparing for this program, I interviewed Karzai just when Efe was dropped off in a cave in Afghanistan at the very beginning. It was insane from that moment on. So I’m curious, you wrote it really eloquently in your piece about the soldiers, the men under your command, the officers who fought with you and what their responses were to this, even though they were further to the right. So talk a bit about that. I mean, what does this say to us in America and the men and women who fought there, and the men and women in the Afghan, men who were killed in this process, and just where we are now? How does that fit into the definition of this moment?
Danny Sjursen: Bush’s speech that you played is just like an exercise in simplification. Right? I mean, we’re going to smoke them out. All this kind of language. It just simplifies it into a morality tale. Right?
Marc Steiner: Right.
Danny Sjursen: The dichotomy, Manichean sort of thing. Actually, it’s really complex, and it’s a great American and a great Afghan tragedy. For the Afghans, it’s a tragedy that really starts in 1973. For the United States, it’s a tragedy that at least for our soldiers, starts in 2001.
So on Sunday, the day that the news breaks of this truce or deal, I was just being a dad at a basketball tournament. On a whole other subject, on another research topic. I reached out via text, a mass text, to the nine lieutenants who worked for me in Afghanistan. And I made a joke, “Happy Afghan Surrender Day.” Which became the title of my article that I wrote hours later. And you know, it was remarkable that this group of guys who ranged from maybe one center-left guy, to mostly moderate Republicans and a lot of Libertarians, they were all in favor conceptually, of withdrawing from Afghanistan… To a man, and they’re all men, to a man. Which I thought was pretty remarkable, 19 years into the war. Because these are combat guys, most of whom have lost soldiers there.
So one might expect that they would see this deal as a betrayal, as a bad surrender. And I got some flippant jokes, responses. But all of them were of the vain that, “Look, whether I like Trump or I don’t, we got to go.” And you know, “Maybe we’re not so sure that this deal is going to hold. But in principle, we support it.” So I think that does speak to where we’re at in this great American and also mainly Afghan tragedy, is that the simplicity, the duality of good and evil that Bush laid down in practice, it’s just proven to be a mess. And I hope that that’s the lesson… I fear we won’t. But I hope that that’s the lesson moving forward that’s taken from this history, because something good… I have to believe something good comes of this war on terror absurdity. I’m not so sure, but I think that the polls that show that more veterans are against the war in Afghanistan than civilians, is a very instructive, rare, and unique moment in American history.
Marc Steiner: So let me conclude with this idea here. One of the things that just came out in the last day was that Fatou Bensouda, who is the head of the International Criminal Court, said there will be an investigation about war crimes against the U.S. and the Taliban in Afghanistan. You think this feeds into that at all? And what’s your response to that as someone who’s served?
Danny Sjursen: There are people within the military who distrust international institutions. And of course, like the ICC, like the United Nations. If you want to hear people bash international organizations, a good place to find that is in the military, particularly even in the officer ranks. But this is an American phenomenon, and it’s not just the Trump thing. This distrust, this unwillingness to play by international norms, many of which were initially founded under our auspices in the aftermath of World War II. But the problem was that once organizations like the ICC and the United nations started to be critical of American imperial policy, then we threw our hands up and said, “We are not playing.” I support a full investigation. I’m all about the truth. I believe that there is such a thing as universal human rights. Well, you know what’s interesting about all of this is… I think that it’s great that the ICC is looking at all three parties, because I believe the Afghan government is also under investigation.
Marc Steiner: Yes, they are.
Danny Sjursen: As they should be.
Marc Steiner: Yes.
Danny Sjursen: As someone who has witnessed war crimes, witnessed war crimes by Afghan soldiers. Okay? I think that all parties should be involved. One thing to remember is that legislation was passed not too long ago by the U.S. Congress, that basically said that we will go as far as up to military force to invade the Hague if necessary, to take an American soldier or an American citizen who is being held there. We are so far along the road, this is a true thing, that we are not willing to subject our citizens or our soldiers to the same laws that apply to the rest of the world.
Now one might look at that and say, “Hey, we’re not going to get a fair trial.” Or, “We’re exceptional. We’re great.” But here’s the thing. How do you think that plays on the Arab street, on the Afghan street, or anywhere in the world? It plays as American hypocrisy, and it builds anti-American sentiment. Or as we like to simplify, it grows terrorists. And so I think that America’s refusal to play ball, refusal to accept even an investigation for the most part into itself, it’s ultimately counterproductive. And oh, by the way, unethical.
Marc Steiner: I guess we can close with this. I mean, it makes me think of what you said a little bit ago, which is… What have we learned? When you think about what happened in Vietnam, and now Afghanistan and Iraq, we have not learned very much. And as you’re describing now, it’s in a sense gotten worse in terms of what our inability is to even be part of the international dialogue to create a more humane world. So I mean, I think this is a very telling and also very trying, and in many ways, frightening moment.
Danny Sjursen: Absolutely. Look, the United States is an imperial entity. And in history, they are defined by three things. Triumphalism, chauvinism. The thing is to keep in mind, this is not going to play well in the world. Right? Exceptionalism, triumphalism, chauvinism. This does not please the people that we’re trying to get on our side. And I fear that we are going to miss out on the lessons of this, just like we did in Vietnam. Who knows where the next theater of American war on a concept will be?
Marc Steiner: Danny Sjursen, thank you so much once again for joining us. I look forward to reading more of your work and having you back again with us soon.
Danny Sjursen: Always a pleasure, Marc. Talk soon.
Marc Steiner: You too, take care. And I’m Marc Steiner, here for the Real News Network. Thank you for joining us. Let us know what you think, what you want to know about. Take care.
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Adam Coley
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Adam Coley, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-09--Biden or Sanders: Who Is More ‘Electable’?

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wolpert : It ’ s The Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wolpert in Baltimore .
Now that the race for the Democratic nomination for president is down to mainly Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden , a large part of the debate and the corporate media revolves around which candidate is more electable or more likely to win in the general election against president Trump .
Here are two examples of the media chorus that emphasizes the electability issue .
Speaker 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of Joe Biden ’ s electability around the threat that Donald Trump obviously feels from him .
Donald Trump is so terrified of running into Joe Biden that he risked his entire presidency .
He bet the farm on his whole presidency to kill him off politically .
Speaker 3 : I think you saw hundreds and thousands of people coming out coast to coast , Democrats .
And one thing ruled above all , they are not willing to roll the dice on the future of this country by wasting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win .
They want someone who can beat Donald Trump .
And I think many of them feel strongly now that in Joe Biden they have that candidate .
Greg Wolpert : Joining me now to explore this electability question is Mark Weisbrot .
He ’ s co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research , and author of the book Failed : What The Experts Got Wrong About The Global Economy .
Thanks for joining us again , Mark .
Mark Weisbrote : Thanks for having me Greg .
Greg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explore the electability question from three different angles .
First , what the polls say .
Second , the policies that each candidate supports .
And third , what history tells us what happened in this similar situation .
Now , regarding the polls , they seem to be relatively inconclusive .
That is with Biden ahead in some of them and Sanders ahead in others .
So , let ’ s take a look at this rather from the perspective of issues .
In a previous interview , we already took a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war in Iraq where he was far more instrumental in making the Iraq war possible than he admits .
Now there ’ s other issues of course , and so let ’ s focus on those .
Key domestic issues for voters will no doubt be social security and Medicare .
There ’ s a large gap between the older and the younger generation in terms of who they support .
18 to 34 year olds support Sanders with 47 % , and Biden only 13 % .
While among senior citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 25 % to 11 % .
So let ’ s start with social security , which is something you ’ ve looked at in quite detail .
Who ought to be more electable on this issue ?
Sanders or Biden ?
Mark Weisbrote : Well , there ’ s no doubt about that .
I mean , Biden has a history of decades of supporting actual cuts to social security benefits , and that hasn ’ t really gotten out there enough , but I think it will .
And so he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And he has a healthcare plan , which does provide something that ’ s an expansion of the Obamacare , the ACA .
And so it provides something , a little bit , some more subsidies for premium for most of the population , but it totally leaves out people over 65 .
And I ’ m glad you emphasized that demographic because that ’ s the demographic that really is not only pro Biden , but it ’ s the more conservative demographic of the Democratic voters .
And they really do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , if you look at where Democrats lost , they only lost in the older demographic , over 50 .
If you took them out , Democrats would ’ ve won the Senate and everything else .
So , this is a really important demographic in the election .
And so Biden ’ s support here is a mile wide , but an inch deep , because as soon as people find out what he ’ s doing on healthcare… so he ’ s provided nothing , absolutely zero for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I think a lot of people don ’ t know that because they ’ re thinking , well , Medicare for all , that ’ s getting everybody what I already have .
But no , it ’ s actually much more than that .
They don ’ t have dental care .
And , you look at the data , a lot of senior citizens are losing teeth because they don ’ t have dental coverage and they don ’ t have eyeglasses covered .
They don ’ t have hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have long-term care , and Biden provides them absolutely nothing .
So here ’ s healthcare reform , and it leaves out the over 65 .
There is one thing in there for long-term care , but it ’ s a non-refundable tax credit , so the vast majority of seniors wouldn ’ t be eligible for it .
So , there ’ s really nothing for them , and that ’ s going to be a scandal when that actually gets into the campaign , because that ’ s a really big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to realize that everybody at least is going to get some little bit from this healthcare reform and they ’ re getting nothing at all .
Greg Wolpert : Mm-hmm ( affirmative ) .
I just want to return quickly to the issue of social security now , I mean , why is it that Biden keeps talking about… and how recently has he been talking about cutting social security ?
Has his position remained the same on that ?
And what is Sander ’ s position on social security ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden supported cutting cuts to social security , very significant cuts .
At that time it was a cut in the cost of living allowance , and that was 2013 .
So it ’ s not what he did in 1995 and in ’ 84 also where he supported cuts , this was fairly recently .
And , so he ’ s only changed his position now in this campaign where he now supports an expansion of benefits , but it ’ s nowhere near what Bernie Sanders is supporting , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have just a whole different record going back .
I mean , Bernie ’ s been in Congress since 1991 , he ’ s been fighting to expand benefits when he had , maybe three people on his side , and Biden was on the other side .
So there ’ s a long track record .
I think that ’ s another thing that ’ s going to come out , because right now he can get away with it , nobody ’ s paying that close attention .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race between those two and people are going to see the differences .
And that ’ s another real difference that ’ ll come out .
I mean , Bernie , one of the reasons he ’ s popular is he ’ s authentic , he has this long track record .
He ’ s been consistent for decades .
And when he talks to the voters , he doesn ’ t talk to them… he doesn ’ t even like to talk about himself at all .
They ’ ll ask him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion , and he quickly says , “ I want to talk about the issues.
” He ’ ll answer them because he has nothing to hide , but what most candidates have is the idea that voters can ’ t understand these things , and therefore I have to talk about my life and my upbringing and my uncle , what my grandfather said , and all the things that Biden likes to talk about .
He ’ s really addressing them on these issues .
And that ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think , in the weeks and months ahead .
Greg Wolpert : Now , what do you think are some of the other issues that Biden might be vulnerable on , or that SAnders could be vulnerable or strong on that would affect their ability to win in a race against Trump in November ?
Mark Weisbrote : Well , I think trade is big , also .
You mentioned the war , I think that ’ s also big , and we talked about that before .
I mean Biden led the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permission from Congress , authority from Congress , I should say , to invade Iraq .
And that ’ s a big thing that ’ ll come out also .
But , the trade issues are very big .
If you look at… everybody knows Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , that ’ s where the electoral votes that gave Trump the election were won last time .
And why did he win them ?
Well , one reason he won them is you look at those States , those were people hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I call them commercial agreements because they ’ re not really so much about trade , but they cost a lot of jobs .
We lost 5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States after 2000 .
Those voters , those swing voters , those were the ones that were most hit .
In fact , you can even look at Trade Adjustment Assistance , which is a federal program that actually pays people who lost their jobs as a result of these commercial agreements .
So you have to be certified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraction of the people who really lost their job .
And you look at those three States and it ’ s vastly more than the margin that Trump won that gave him the election .
And then you had the Trans-Pacific Partnership at that time , which unfortunately at that time , president Obama was going around the country campaigning for the TPP , and Hillary had campaigned , had been very strongly in favor of the TPP , and she changed her position for the election .
And that was a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ s the only one he actually delivered on where he did reject the agreement , which is not clear at all would have happened if he hadn ’ t won .
So that ’ s , I think , going to be a major issue going forward .
And those are the real swing voters .
I mean , the biggest and most likely group of swing voters in the next election will be people who were negatively affected by those agreements , not only from lost jobs , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything else that came out of those agreements .
Greg Wolpert : Mm-hmm ( affirmative ) .
Well that ’ s actually something I wanted to focus on next , is that historical comparison to 2016 , and as you point out , that this was the main place where the election was lost in 2016 was precisely in those battlefield States .
And even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes or a 2 % difference , she still lost .
So how does this now compare ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you mentioned that Biden is weak on the trade issue , which is particularly vulnerable .
Now of course the thing that Trump would bring out if Sanders were the nominee is that he is too far left , that he ’ s a socialist , and now they ’ re even dragging out that he had… one point , I just saw , a report that he wanted to create a sister city within the Soviet union at that time in 1980s .
So , I mean , if you make that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got a neoliberal candidate , basically , who contributed to the dismantling of manufacturing in the Midwest .
And then you ’ ve got somebody else who the mainstream media , the corporate media , are going to paint as a sort of communist .
How do you think this will play out ultimately ?
Mark Weisbrote : Well , this again shows the absolute superficiality of what just happened , the reversal in the primary , where Sanders was way ahead of Biden .
And in fact , I was on Democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the film that we talked about here about Biden ’ s role in the Iraq war .
I had to spend the first minute or two just convincing people that Biden was still relevant so that they would watch it .
And so you can see this kind of volatility is a result of this superficiality of the changes in the voting patterns .
In other words , this is exactly what you said , the media went on a big campaign to convince people that Biden was more electable .
Biden himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he didn ’ t even have the money for the ads to do what the media did .
And , of course , yes , front page article in the New York times yesterday , which was amazing .
It was a very painstakingly detailed story about Bernie Sander ’ s trip to the Soviet union in the 1980s , when Ronald Reagan was supporting actually what he was doing , trying to improve relations with the Soviet union at that time .
And , they made it look like the Soviets were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that stuff .
It was a horrible , right out of the 1950s kind of article .
I think now the question is , can this really hold up ?
This shift that you have , which , all the polling data shows that the shift was a result of people voting in the primary on the basis of this so-called electability .
I don ’ t think it can hold up , because first of all , this idea that Bernie is too radical .
I mean , as the issues come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Bernie is , is a social Democrat of the kind that have been in power in France and Germany and the UK for most of the post World War II period .
And he wants to get for American voters what voters in Europe have gotten , what voters that in countries that are not even as rich as us have , including , of course , first and foremost , healthcare as a human right for everyone .
But also some other advances that they have in terms of our work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t have here in the United States .
And some job security , maybe the right to organize labor unions , which has been vastly weakened in the United States .
So , these are the kinds of things he ’ s asking for , it ’ s not revolutionary .
In fact , you can make a case that he ’ s actually the moderate candidate , and what ’ s radical are the changes that have come to the United States in the post Reagan era , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way from welfare reform to financial deregulation , to everything .
The commercial agreements that we talked about , that really transformed the society from one in which , those who are old enough to remember , one wage earner with a median wage could actually buy a home and support a family , and send their kids to college and they wouldn ’ t come out with a lifetime of unpayable debt .
Greg Wolpert : Mm-hmm ( affirmative ) .
Yes .
I think that ’ s going to be very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , because what it all depends on is whether the corporate media , basically the mainstream media pay attention to these records .
But we ’ ll have to see , and of course we ’ re going to do our part in trying to bring out to light what ’ s going on and what the actual records are .
But we ’ re going to leave it there for now .
I was speaking to Mark Weisbrot , co-director of the Center For Economic And Policy Research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ us today .
Greg Wolpert : And thank you for joining the Real News Network .

Corporate media and corporate Democrats say Sanders is less electable because of his supposed “radical” views. But is this true? And what about Biden’s electability, given his past support for neoliberal policies?
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore. Now that the race for the Democratic nomination for president is down to mainly Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, a large part of the debate and the corporate media revolves around which candidate is more electable or more likely to win in the general election against president Trump. Here are two examples of the media chorus that emphasizes the electability issue.
Speaker 2: I wonder if voters have internalized some of Joe Biden’s electability around the threat that Donald Trump obviously feels from him. Donald Trump is so terrified of running into Joe Biden that he risked his entire presidency. He bet the farm on his whole presidency to kill him off politically.
Speaker 3: I think you saw hundreds and thousands of people coming out coast to coast, Democrats. And one thing ruled above all, they are not willing to roll the dice on the future of this country by wasting a vote.
Speaker 2: That’s right.
Speaker 3: They want to win. They want someone who can beat Donald Trump. And I think many of them feel strongly now that in Joe Biden they have that candidate.
Greg Wilpert: Joining me now to explore this electability question is Mark Weisbrot. He’s co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and author of the book Failed: What The Experts Got Wrong About The Global Economy.
Thanks for joining us again, Mark.
Mark Weisbrot: Thanks for having me Greg.
Greg Wilpert: So I think we can explore the electability question from three different angles. First, what the polls say. Second, the policies that each candidate supports. And third, what history tells us what happened in this similar situation.
Now, regarding the polls, they seem to be relatively inconclusive. That is with Biden ahead in some of them and Sanders ahead in others. So, let’s take a look at this rather from the perspective of issues.
In a previous interview, we already took a look at Biden’s stance on the war in Iraq where he was far more instrumental in making the Iraq war possible than he admits. Now there’s other issues of course, and so let’s focus on those. Key domestic issues for voters will no doubt be social security and Medicare.
There’s a large gap between the older and the younger generation in terms of who they support. 18 to 34 year olds support Sanders with 47%, and Biden only 13%. While among senior citizens, Biden leads Sanders by a margin of 25% to 11%.
So let’s start with social security, which is something you’ve looked at in quite detail. Who ought to be more electable on this issue? Sanders or Biden?
Mark Weisbrot: Well, there’s no doubt about that. I mean, Biden has a history of decades of supporting actual cuts to social security benefits, and that hasn’t really gotten out there enough, but I think it will. And so he’s very vulnerable for that.
And he has a healthcare plan, which does provide something that’s an expansion of the Obamacare, the ACA. And so it provides something, a little bit, some more subsidies for premium for most of the population, but it totally leaves out people over 65. And I’m glad you emphasized that demographic because that’s the demographic that really is not only pro Biden, but it’s the more conservative demographic of the Democratic voters.
And they really do turnout. In the 2018 elections, for example, if you look at where Democrats lost, they only lost in the older demographic, over 50. If you took them out, Democrats would’ve won the Senate and everything else.
So, this is a really important demographic in the election. And so Biden’s support here is a mile wide, but an inch deep, because as soon as people find out what he’s doing on healthcare… so he’s provided nothing, absolutely zero for people over 65 who get actual Medicare. And I think a lot of people don’t know that because they’re thinking, well, Medicare for all, that’s getting everybody what I already have.
But no, it’s actually much more than that. They don’t have dental care. And, you look at the data, a lot of senior citizens are losing teeth because they don’t have dental coverage and they don’t have eyeglasses covered. They don’t have hearing aids covered, they don’t have long-term care, and Biden provides them absolutely nothing.
So here’s healthcare reform, and it leaves out the over 65. There is one thing in there for long-term care, but it’s a non-refundable tax credit, so the vast majority of seniors wouldn’t be eligible for it.
So, there’s really nothing for them, and that’s going to be a scandal when that actually gets into the campaign, because that’s a really big thing. I mean, they’re going to realize that everybody at least is going to get some little bit from this healthcare reform and they’re getting nothing at all.
Greg Wilpert: Mm-hmm (affirmative). I just want to return quickly to the issue of social security now, I mean, why is it that Biden keeps talking about… and how recently has he been talking about cutting social security? Has his position remained the same on that? And what is Sander’s position on social security?
Mark Weisbrot: Yes. Well, Biden supported cutting cuts to social security, very significant cuts. At that time it was a cut in the cost of living allowance, and that was 2013. So it’s not what he did in 1995 and in ’84 also where he supported cuts, this was fairly recently. And, so he’s only changed his position now in this campaign where he now supports an expansion of benefits, but it’s nowhere near what Bernie Sanders is supporting, which is a strong expansion of benefits.
And they have just a whole different record going back. I mean, Bernie’s been in Congress since 1991, he’s been fighting to expand benefits when he had, maybe three people on his side, and Biden was on the other side. So there’s a long track record. I think that’s another thing that’s going to come out, because right now he can get away with it, nobody’s paying that close attention.
Now, it’s a head to head race between those two and people are going to see the differences. And that’s another real difference that’ll come out. I mean, Bernie, one of the reasons he’s popular is he’s authentic, he has this long track record. He’s been consistent for decades.
And when he talks to the voters, he doesn’t talk to them… he doesn’t even like to talk about himself at all. They’ll ask him a question about himself, even his religion, and he quickly says, “I want to talk about the issues.” He’ll answer them because he has nothing to hide, but what most candidates have is the idea that voters can’t understand these things, and therefore I have to talk about my life and my upbringing and my uncle, what my grandfather said, and all the things that Biden likes to talk about.
He’s really addressing them on these issues. And that’s going to come out more and more, I think, in the weeks and months ahead.
Greg Wilpert: Now, what do you think are some of the other issues that Biden might be vulnerable on, or that Sanders could be vulnerable or strong on that would affect their ability to win in a race against Trump in November?
Mark Weisbrot: Well, I think trade is big, also. You mentioned the war, I think that’s also big, and we talked about that before. I mean Biden led the effort to give president George W. Bush permission from Congress, authority from Congress, I should say, to invade Iraq. And that’s a big thing that’ll come out also.
But, the trade issues are very big. If you look at… everybody knows Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, that’s where the electoral votes that gave Trump the election were won last time. And why did he win them? Well, one reason he won them is you look at those States, those were people hit very hard by the so-called trade agreements, I call them commercial agreements because they’re not really so much about trade, but they cost a lot of jobs.
We lost 5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States after 2000. Those voters, those swing voters, those were the ones that were most hit. In fact, you can even look at Trade Adjustment Assistance, which is a federal program that actually pays people who lost their jobs as a result of these commercial agreements. So you have to be certified. So it’s a small fraction of the people who really lost their job.
And you look at those three States and it’s vastly more than the margin that Trump won that gave him the election. And then you had the Trans-Pacific Partnership at that time, which unfortunately at that time, president Obama was going around the country campaigning for the TPP, and Hillary had campaigned, had been very strongly in favor of the TPP, and she changed her position for the election.
And that was a very big issue that Trump played upon. And it’s the only one he actually delivered on where he did reject the agreement, which is not clear at all would have happened if he hadn’t won.
So that’s, I think, going to be a major issue going forward. And those are the real swing voters. I mean, the biggest and most likely group of swing voters in the next election will be people who were negatively affected by those agreements, not only from lost jobs, but lower wages, greater job insecurity and everything else that came out of those agreements.
Greg Wilpert: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Well that’s actually something I wanted to focus on next, is that historical comparison to 2016, and as you point out, that this was the main place where the election was lost in 2016 was precisely in those battlefield States. And even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes or a 2% difference, she still lost.
So how does this now compare? I mean the thing that… of course you mentioned that Biden is weak on the trade issue, which is particularly vulnerable. Now of course the thing that Trump would bring out if Sanders were the nominee is that he is too far left, that he’s a socialist, and now they’re even dragging out that he had… one point, I just saw, a report that he wanted to create a sister city within the Soviet union at that time in 1980s.
So, I mean, if you make that comparison, then, you’ve got a neoliberal candidate, basically, who contributed to the dismantling of manufacturing in the Midwest. And then you’ve got somebody else who the mainstream media, the corporate media, are going to paint as a sort of communist. How do you think this will play out ultimately?
Mark Weisbrot: Well, this again shows the absolute superficiality of what just happened, the reversal in the primary, where Sanders was way ahead of Biden. And in fact, I was on Democracy Now a few weeks ago, introducing the film that we talked about here about Biden’s role in the Iraq war. I had to spend the first minute or two just convincing people that Biden was still relevant so that they would watch it.
And so you can see this kind of volatility is a result of this superficiality of the changes in the voting patterns. In other words, this is exactly what you said, the media went on a big campaign to convince people that Biden was more electable.
Biden himself didn’t even do it, he didn’t even have the money for the ads to do what the media did. And, of course, yes, front page article in the New York times yesterday, which was amazing. It was a very painstakingly detailed story about Bernie Sander’s trip to the Soviet union in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was supporting actually what he was doing, trying to improve relations with the Soviet union at that time.
And, they made it look like the Soviets were just using it for propaganda and all that stuff. It was a horrible, right out of the 1950s kind of article.
I think now the question is, can this really hold up? This shift that you have, which, all the polling data shows that the shift was a result of people voting in the primary on the basis of this so-called electability.
I don’t think it can hold up, because first of all, this idea that Bernie is too radical. I mean, as the issues come out, it will be clear that what Bernie is, is a social Democrat of the kind that have been in power in France and Germany and the UK for most of the post World War II period.
And he wants to get for American voters what voters in Europe have gotten, what voters that in countries that are not even as rich as us have, including, of course, first and foremost, healthcare as a human right for everyone. But also some other advances that they have in terms of our work hours and vacation time and things that we don’t have here in the United States. And some job security, maybe the right to organize labor unions, which has been vastly weakened in the United States.
So, these are the kinds of things he’s asking for, it’s not revolutionary. In fact, you can make a case that he’s actually the moderate candidate, and what’s radical are the changes that have come to the United States in the post Reagan era, which Biden was a supporter of all the way from welfare reform to financial deregulation, to everything.
The commercial agreements that we talked about, that really transformed the society from one in which, those who are old enough to remember, one wage earner with a median wage could actually buy a home and support a family, and send their kids to college and they wouldn’t come out with a lifetime of unpayable debt.
Greg Wilpert: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yes. I think that’s going to be very interesting to see how this plays out, of course, because what it all depends on is whether the corporate media, basically the mainstream media pay attention to these records. But we’ll have to see, and of course we’re going to do our part in trying to bring out to light what’s going on and what the actual records are.
But we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center For Economic And Policy Research.
Thanks again, Mark for having joined us today.
Mark Weisbrot: Thank you, Greg.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Studio: Taylor Hebden, Cameron Granadino
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Cameron Granadino, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.