Posted on by Nathan Riley

Will the Democratic Love-Fest Continue?

The worriers were wrong. The Democrats replaced Joe Biden without a fight, without disruption. Sixth grade civics won out: the President is sick, the Vice-President takes over.

Party unity was jolted, fed by enthusiasm. Kamala Harris for President was greeted by Democrats with an immense sigh of relief: she looked healthy and able to do the job. Almost immediately, stories leaked about what the Wall Street Journal called her ten-hour telephone “marathon” after Biden pulled out of the race. Over one hundred calls, so the story went, and it carried a double message. She was organized, had the phone numbers, and could reach hundreds of Democratic decision-makers. She asked for support, and as everybody has heard, they gave it to her. Her energy also made it clear that she could reach out and help party members with their problems. Her White House would be accessible.

The fast turnover made it clear that supporters of an open convention, where candidates would have an opportunity to be heard, were offering bad advice. The doctor would have been prescribing chaos. Instead, Joe Biden endorsed Kamala and, more to the point, turned over his campaign staff and hundred-million-dollar bank account to her. Hickety-split the turnover fell into place.

Kamala is talking the language of continuity. For the left, there is hope that their friends at the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission will continue their policies for another four years.

Foreign policy will divide Democrats: Ukraine and Gaza. The United States has not chosen peace, but in these places it has chosen sides. In the Ukraine, it is the pro-Western government; in Gaza, it is Israel. The results are catastrophic. Gaza is being demolished, and Ukraine’s infrastructure is crumbling. It seems certain that U.S. foreign policy will receive sharp scrutiny. How Democrats cope with these decisions will be a major problem for the next President. Trump or Harris will confront this grave predicament.

The left appears committed to peaceful solutions. It can make friends or in an extreme case look unreliable. Turning American foreign policy in a new direction is no easy matter. It should provide many opportunities for gaining friends and entering into mutually beneficial arrangements. Plainly it will be a dominant issue in January 2025.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Through the Looking Glass

June is China Month in Washington D.C.

The G7—once the most prestigious group of nations in the globe, now reduced to an alliance of the U.S. and its allies—met in Italy and issued a communique at the end of its meeting. China didn’t attend, but it was mentioned 28 times.

In a front page New York Times story, clearly at the behest of U.S. diplomatic sources, China is described as a “malign force.” Among its numerous sins, said U.S. officials, is helping Russia build weapons to fight Ukraine and a possible threat to withhold the exotic minerals used in batteries and microchips. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has written two articles about reducing tension between Washington and Beijing.

The U.S. and China navies come dangerously close to each other in the South China Sea. Gone are the days when Apple proudly announced new sales figures from China for its products. Now the U.S. issues stern warnings trying to limit China’s alliance with Russia.

If we had a looking glass that could peer into the future, war between these superpowers is conceivable. China is protecting its borders. Its soldiers and weapons are close at hand. The U.S. is at the other side of the world and depending on its collection of bases in the Pacific for supplies to fight a war. Nonetheless the U.S. confidently assures us it can master the Chinese, who already forced U.S. troops back seventy years ago in Korea.

It is all too conceivable that war could flare up between the world’s two superpowers. This is high risk politics, and the U.S. acts like it is prepared to confront this worst-of-all possible outcomes.

The push for world government is one possible way to prevent these two atomic powers from coming to blows. If we turned the United Nations into the World Government we would have a better chance of resolving these tensions without the death and destruction of war.

Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine beats the Russians their nation is a shadow of its former self. Cities, farmlands, and power plants would have to be rebuilt. The millions of people who fled will need strong reassurances to return and are more likely to prefer the peace and prosperity in their new homes. Restoring Ukraine will take decades.

In Gaza, the destruction is even graver, and there is the strong possibility that Israel has no intention of letting the Palestinians return to their homes. Death, destruction, and possible starvation are the realities that govern Palestine. Furious at the October 7th massacre by Hamas, Israel believes that its weapons can destroy Palestinian militancy. There is widespread skepticism that this final solution will be achieved by the Israeli Defense Forces.

We should remember that the problem isn’t a Hamas massacre or an Israeli blockade of humanitarian aid. The problem isn’t separating the good guys from the bad guys by the evil deeds they commit; the problem is war. Using weapons to settle disputes will always bring war crimes. Only if we find an alternate way to resolve disputes can we stop these horrific crimes.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, coming out of the World War II victory, clearly hoped the United Nations would prevent wars from starting. He did not envision subordinating nations to an international peacekeeping force. As we approach the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the need for a world-governing body like the United Nations to control national governments persists. What was a step too far for Roosevelt can happen if Americans unite into a political party supporting this drastic solution.

World government, I believe, is one reason to support Freedom Democrats and to ally ourselves with the fight for the rights of sex workers, drug users, and people who party. We can create new possibilities and move the United States, and hopefully the world, in a peaceful and prosperous direction.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley · 1 Comment

Strategy

Abraham Lincoln, at 33 and on his way to becoming a leader of the Whig Party in Illinois offered this caution to a local temperance society about helping people give up drink. His advice was simple: offer friendship. If you don’t do this but choose “to dictate to his judgment… or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself…you shall be no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise.” Be gentle, caring, and friendly was Lincoln’s advice.

Freedom Democrats are trying to start a movement by cultivating friendship. The key organizing tool is weekly parties. In my opinion, it should be an opportunity for sex workers, persons who are not highly educated, and those who want to reform government to dance, talk, and become friends.

United in their belief that freedom includes the right to take the currently illegal drugs, trade sex for money, watch and make porn, these people can unite in a common cause. One main hope is that these parties can bring the college professor together with the high school dropout. To be a success, black, brown, and white people must be welcomed and have fun.

The objective is to become players in the Democratic Party, and from this base, to have an impact on government.

Everybody goes to parties and has good times. The key to success is that everybody feels welcome at these weekly events. No special skills are required to throw a party, but since Freedom Democrats are political, the hosts should establish ties with lawyers. It can be expected that while we are enjoying ourselves other people will badmouth us and some will call the cops.

In this way, from the very beginning, the host will establish ties with people knowledgeable about the law. A major objective of Freedom Democrats is to get activists and people with little interest in politics to become acquainted. In this way, Freedom Democrats can grow until they have an impact.

People who party should become friends with coat-and-tie people.

For years, congress has talked endlessly about making marijuana legal, but in the end fear of change has limited progress to baby steps. The same hesitation slows progress among state and local officials. Freedom Democrats are numerous, and the strategy is to create unity so that politicians take notice.

By throwing parties we develop local bases in communities all over the state.

In my opinion, Freedom Democrats should push for new attitudes. Drug users should be able to go to their doctors without interference from government agencies like the DEA. Some people want to give up their habit; others want to be left alone. It is a private matter between the doctor and the drug user. Drug users, like everyone else, should get substances prepared by doctors and scientists that minimize side-effects.

Currently, drug users must buy their drugs from underground suppliers without any of the safeguards that a person has when they take a prescription to a drugstore. Overdose deaths rocketed higher after politicians made the disastrous mistake of telling Oxycontin users that they could no longer get pharmaceutical drugs. It made no more sense than telling overweight people they can no longer buy food. The chance of an Oxycontin user overdosing is limited, while illegal drugs are killing thousands every month. The Oxycontin users should have had the right to go to their doctor and develop a course of treatment. It is obnoxious and stupid for government to simply tell people, “Stop,” denounce the drug, and then expect people to give it up. Some do, but many don’t and buy their drugs from dealers. Government, in its stupidity, created a large market for criminals. Some Freedom Democrats can make it clear that this stupid policy subsidized criminals.

In recent months, wars in Palestine and Ukraine have added to the list of armed conflicts that are a constant feature of this century. Since the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the United States’ Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delanor Roosevelt have recognized that the best way to hinder war is to start a world government that controls national states.

For this reason, I proposed that the United Nations become such a world government. It is a change that is familiar to American history. The Confederation of 13 colonies that beat the British couldn’t last. The Confederacy was too weak to collect taxes, make it easy to do business between states. Thus, in 1787, after the peace treaty was signed with Great Britain, a group of patriots drafted the Constitution, and the Confederation became history.

I propose that similar agreements be drafted that would control Israel, Russia, China, the United States, and all the other countries in the world. If a dispute develops, these nations would hire lawyers, not troops. I have no idea if this proposal would prove popular in the United States or with Freedom Democrats, but it is a major reason why I want the Freedom Democrats to get organized.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

World Government Could Prevent War in the Middle East

During my college years I concluded that in Vietnam the United States was the bad guy. I still believe that.

The October 7th massacres in Israel ironically happened in areas well known as centers of support for those Israelis working to improve relations between Israel and Palestine.

Current standards in international affairs give Israel, the victim, free rein to punish its attackers.

The wisdom of this arrangement is doubtful. If my sister is attacked the law stops me from punishing the attacker. A neutral party, the police, investigates, and their findings are reviewed by lawyers and judges. The victim may be heard but is sidelined.

That didn’t happen in Gaza, Israel, the victim, imposed the punishment. The Israeli Defense Forces were told to meet violence with violence and punish Hamas, designated an Iranian proxy.

Almost simultaneously, it came to light that Israel had sent millions to Hamas. A finding contradicting the notion that Hamas is an Iranian proxy.

There is no world government to investigate this complicated relationship. Israel controlled the facts and determined the punishment without any neutral investigators intervening. Well-organized groups in the United States prevailed on the President and Congress to assist Israel’s war against Hamas, as if Hamas were a sovereign nation, and Israel’s conclusion that war against this group was the best course of action.

A world government would have prevented Israel from striking back and from deciding the facts and imposing the punishment.

“Draconian” does not do justice to Israel’s conclusion. As a secular Jew I keep silencing the voices in my head saying Israel is proposing a final solution, or, as the Israeli Defense Minister promised, “to remove the evil threats against us.” They are using violence to destroy Hamas. This war aim makes peace doubtful; Hamas is in a fight to the death.

In turn, Israel, like the United States in Vietnam, becomes the bad guy. Israel is way more powerful than the Palestinians, just as the U.S. was over Vietnam. Using bullets, however, brings unpredictable results—the U.S. was forced out of Vietnam.

A simple empirical test will help clarify the reason Israel has decided to punish all Palestinians for the acts of Hamas. When the fighting stops, will the Palestinians return to their homes or will Israelis live in what used to be Gaza?

Posted on by Nathan Riley

World Government Could Prevent Palestinian Crisis

No matter what happens. Freedom Democrats will grapple with the U.S./Israel invasion of Palestine.

As I write this, police across the nation are arresting protestors angered by the displacement of the Palestinians in Gaza. As you read this, it is clear I am no friend of the Israeli counterattack following the mysterious October 7th massacre by Hamas. I am no expert on the Middle East, and the U.N., which possesses such skills, is being ignored. My gut feeling is that when Israel has moved the Palestinian population Israel will move and rebuild the destroyed neighborhoods in Gaza. With this big difference, Israelis will replace the Palestinians.

My conclusion sees this conflict as a real estate deal. The Palestinians are being replaced, just as settlers replaced the American Indians.

This affects Freedom Democrats because although it is still early in this conflict, it appears that the Democratic coalition could split. The Vietnam War tore apart the Democratic Party and ended the Roosevelt coalition that started during the Great Depression in 1932. The split over Vietnam followed a split between Segregation Democrats and the progressive forces demanding that racial distinctions end and that the U.S. integrate everybody regardless of skin color. In the long aftermath following the Warren Court striking down school segregation and the passage of Civil Rights legislation, the Democrats lost the South. It became Republican, and the Democratic party gained support in the Black and Hispanic communities. Democratic hawks and peaceniks learned how to work together.

Right now, it appears that the Democrats will split over Palestine just before the election in November. Freedom Democrats, like all voters, will have to decide whether to stay loyal to President Joseph Biden, with Donald Trump as the alternative. Their other choices are staying home or hoping that Cornel West will get on the ballot. None of this is good news for Democrats.

The point is that Freedom Democrats would have serious decisions to make and be able to enter into conversations with thoughtful people. It would be a way to expand contacts and win converts.

My perspective is radical. The 250th anniversary of the American Revolution is two years away, and founders like Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the dozens of other people who created the first European style government without a hereditary ruler are still celebrated. The American colonists who created first the Confederacy and then drafted the Constitution of 1787 devised a system of term limits. Members of the House of Representatives would need majority approval every two years, Senators every six years, and the President every four years. In Europe, many of these positions were inherited, but the U.S. rejected this approach. The leaders of the new nation would be selected by majority rule.

Over the decades, the system has changed dramatically, but the founders of the United States are still prominent figures.

I believe it is time we find new heroes that will make the United Nations a global government. This is a daunting task. If the U.N. is the world sovereign, then the United States government becomes subordinate to this world government. A prospect guaranteed to generate hostility in the United States.

The advantage of making the U.N. sovereign is that member nations would have to hire lawyers to settle their disputes. If Vladimir Putin feels threatened by the changes in Ukraine, he can start a legal action. The United States and Ukraine would, under international law, be compelled to respond.

This is only possible if the U.N. has the troops to enforce its orders. Russia, the United States, and Ukraine lose their ability to ignore U.N. decisions. Member nations, including the U.S., must agree that their troops will be commanded by the U.N.

This is a huge step. But it holds out the promise that missiles and bullets will stop being a way to settle international disputes.

A major and immediate task of the U.N. is to protect people from being removed from their homes. Whether it’s drought, tribal hostilities, or the hope of living better in a rich country, people should not be forced to leave their homes.

The U.N. must have the funds and expertise to create stability in nations all over the world.

The people who do this will become as famous as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. The reward for the creators of this new world will be that their fame lasts generation after generation.

If the U.N. were running the show, the Israelis would not be able to invade Palestine, and Hamas would be hunted by U.N. police. Their object wouldn’t be to kill Hamas or eliminate it as the Israelis wish. They would have a more reasonable goal: arrest and trial.

In short, giving the U.N. sovereign power would allow lawyers and diplomats, rather than soldiers and drones, to solve problems.