Lament of a Green pacifist

The following article is copied from the Berliner Zeitung and was forwarded to me by my new friend Desdemona.

 .A Bundeswehr soldier in front of Marder armored personnel carriers that have been loaded onto a train for transport.

Antje Vollmers’ legacy of a pacifist:

“What I would still have to say”

The ex-vice president of the Bundestag criticizes the Greens for turning away from pacifism. In the essay, she formulates her political conclusion.

Antje Vollmers

23.02.2023 | updated 26.02.2023

Antje Vollmer was vice president of the German Bundestag and was the first signatory of the peace manifesto of Sahra Wagenknecht and Alice Schwarzer. Vollmer is a pacifist and was an opponent of the wars in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. As an author, she has worked intensively on the protagonists of July 20, 1944, and the anti-fascist resistance. Antje Vollmer is seriously ill. Her text can be read as a political legacy – it is a great reckoning with the zeitgeist. We publish the guest article in full length. Editorial.

I was standing at the train station in my hometown, waiting for the ICE. Suddenly, a huge convoy approached on the siding, fully loaded with tanks – with martens, cheetahs or leopards. I can’t tell, but I was shocked to read the picture. The transport was going from west to east.

It was not difficult to imagine the opposite image. Somewhere in the east military transports full of Russian battle tanks were rolling from east to west at the same time. They would not meet for a World War I-style tank battle somewhere in Ukraine.

No, this time they would once again mark the arms-locked chasm between two power blocs, where the world might face each other for the last time in a confrontation with a possibly apocalyptic outcome. So we were back in the Cold War and in a spiral of mutual existential threat – with no way out, no perspective. Everything I had fought against politically all my life was present to me at that moment as one huge defeat.

ANTJE VOLLMERS

“…and fight back every day. A Green Diary” (1984) Antje Vollmer was born on May 31, 1943, in Lübbecke, Westphalia. She is a former vice president of the German Bundestag and a Green Party politician. Her awards include the Carl von Ossietzky Medal (1989), the Hannah Arendt Prize (1998) and the 2002 Masaryk Order of the Czech Republic for services to German-Czech reconciliation (awarded by President Vaclav Havel). She has written numerous books, including: “…and Wehret Euch täglich. A Green Diary” (1984), “Hot Peace. On Violence, Power and the Mystery of Civilization” (1995), “Doppelleben. Heinrich and Gottliebe von Lehndorff in the Resistance to Hitler and von Ribbentrop” (2010), “Stauffenberg’s Companions” with Lars Broder-Keil (2013). 

With history it is always important from which beginning you tell it

It has become customary, at the beginning of every mention of the immense tragedy surrounding the Ukraine war, to speak like an oath of the “turning point in time”, of Putin’s brutal war of aggression in violation of international law, with the Russian side clearly being solely to blame, and to humbly confess how much one had been mistaken in trusting in a phase of détente and reconciliation with Russia after the great turning point of 1989/90.

By Antje Vollmers

Berlin

14.07.2022

Where exactly did the defeat begin? Where did the error begin? When and how did this renewed deadly escalation of war, violence and bloc confrontation arise from one of the happiest phases in the history of the Eurasian continent, after the almost non-violent end of the Cold War? Who had an interest in the fact that the then possible peaceful coexistence between East and West did not come about, but fell prey to renewed worldwide antagonism?

And then the question of all questions: Why was it that Europe of all places, this continent with all its historical tragedies and power-political aberrations, did not find the strength to become the center of a peaceful vision for the threatened planet?

Jill Stein wins a battle for paper ballots

Back in 2016, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein filed lawsuits after complaints that tens of thousands of votes had gone uncounted on touch-screen voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

She lost in Wisconsin and Michigan, but recently won a decision that Pennsylvania must use paper ballots.  The state government, along with a number of others, already had decided to use paper ballots, so Stein won after all.

Stein is regarded by many as a fringe candidate, but she jumped in at a time the Democratic Party leaders couldn’t be bothered.  Now the nation is coming around to her way of thinking on this one issue.

Never dismiss anybody as unimportant if they happen to be right!

LINKS

Pennsylvania commits to new voting machines, election audits by Marc Levy for the Associated Press.

Jill Stein wins election reform in PA by David Schwab for OpEd News.  [Added 12/4/2018]

Jill Stein Lawsuit Forces Adoption of Paper Ballots and Election Audits in Pennsylvania by Bruce A. Dixon for the Black Agenda Report.

Fourteen states can’t guarantee accurate election results by Shannon Vavra for Axios (from August 2018)

Jill Stein’s greatest hits

A shorter version is below.

The case for Jill Stein and the Green Party

Unlike Donald Trump or Gary Johnson, Jill Stein has a grasp of the issues and gives substantive answers to questions.  Unlike with Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, there is reason to believe that she means what she says.

Unlike Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein can be counted on not to risk nuclear war with Russia or to continue wars to dominate the Middle East.    Unlike even Bernie Sanders, she has a clear understanding of the costs and wrongness of U.S. military intervention.

Unlike Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein can be counted on to respect the Bill of Rights.  That means no assassinations, preventive detention or warrant-less surveillance.   It’s true that the NSA, CIA and other secret agencies might resist any effort by Stein or any other U..S. President to curb their power, but a start has to be made somewhere.

Unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson, Jill Stein can be counted on to oppose corporate and financial practices that redistribute income upward.

Alone of all the candidates, she takes the threat of global warming seriously and would give priority to moving the United States to a sustainable, carbon-free economy.

Her proposed “Green New Deal” would be an effective means of putting Americans to work doing things that America needs.

Jill Stein’s strange choice for Green VP

What was Jill Stein thinking when she picked Ajamu Baraka as the Green Party’s vice presidential candidate?

• Baraka’s early life is a mystery.  Neither his Wikipedia page nor his own web log nor the Green Party’s web page contain such elementary information as his date of birth, his place of birth, his schooling, his first job or whether Ajamu Baraka is his birth name.  Does he have something to hide?
• He has called Bernie Sanders a sheepdog for the Democratic Party and a supporter of American imperialism—which seems to run counter to Stein’s goal of seeking the votes Sanders supporters.

I don’t entirely disagree with Baraka.  It is true that Sanders isn’t as eager for war as Clinton, but he does not challenge the basic assumptions behind U.S. war policies.

The problem is that mere denunciation will not change anybody’s mind.  Baraka’s rhetoric will appeal only to those who already agree with him.

Daily Kos writer smears Jill Stein

Jill Stein is a fraud.  Check out her list of campaign contributors per the FEC. The top five donations are from corporate interests — AON, Xoom Global Money Transfer, IBM, Thoughtworks, and UPS.  Would Bernie take money from any of these?

Source: Daily Kos

Jill Stein

This sounds bad, doesn’t it?  Corporations are barred from making contributions directly, but the Vote Smart web site editors track the affiliations of individual contributors—which can be top level executives or rank-and-file workers.

The answer to the question is that Bernie Sanders would have taken $27 donations from employees of any of these organizations.

Here are the facts.

Vote Smart reported that Jill Stein has raised $859,155 so far in this election.  The top affiliations of contributors were:

• $2,700 from AON, an insurance company.
• $2,600 from Xoom Global Money Transfer
• $2,000 from IBM Corp.
• $2,000 from Thoughtworks
• $1,550 from UPS.

Does that seem like big money?  Compare this with Hillary Clinton, who has raised $264 million—more than 300 times as much.  The top affiliations of her contributors were:

• $641,593 from the University of California
• $432,615 from Emily’s List, which supports feminist and women candidates.
• $426,910 from Alphabet Inc. (Google)
• $414,532 from Morgan & Morgan, a law firm specializing in personal injury cases.
• $330,433 from Morgan Stanley.

Vote Smart reported that Donald Trump has raised $89 million.  The top affiliations of his contributors are:

Five American parties on war and peace

The political platform of a political party is not binding on its candidates, but it is significant because it reflects what people who are most active in the party would like to see happen.

Since I think Americans should be open to voting for small political parties as well as large parties, I look at what the top five parties advocate concerning war and peace, which I think is the most important issue.

To sum them up:

• The Democratic Party says it wants peace, but that it is threatened by ISIS, Syria, Russia, North Korea and others.
• The Republican Party says peace is threatened by ISIS, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea and others, and no limitations should be placed on possible U.S. military action.
• The Libertarian Party opposes military intervention and “entangling alliances” and believes in armed neutrality, like Switzerland’s.
• The Green Party thinks the USA should be guided by the United Nations charter and only engage in military action when authorized by the UN Security Council.
• The Constitution Party opposes undeclared wars, treaties that commit the United States to military action and membership in the United Nations and other international bodies.

None of these is exactly what I think.   I’m somewhere between the Democrats (their platform, that is) and the Libertarians and Constitutionists.

∞∞∞

Below is a slightly more detailed summary of the party platforms, with my comments.

The five major parties and their candidates

As my friend John (Jack) Belli points out, five major parties are running candidates in this year’s election.

The five parties are the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green and Constitution parties.   They are “major” parties because their presidential candidates are on the ballots in at least 20 states and could in principle win a majority of the electoral votes.

In this post, I merely provide Wikipedia links to the five major parties and their candidates, as basic and more-or-less neutral sources of information.  The links show that the three small parties are not only different from the two large parties, but very different from each other.  In subsequent posts, I’ll compare and contrast their platforms on important issues.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY

For President: Hillary Clinton.

For Vice-President: Tim Kaine.

REPUPLICAN PARTY

For President: Donald Trump.

For Vice-President: Mike Pence.

LIBERTARIAN PARTY

For President: Gary Johnson.

For Vice-President: William Weld.

GREEN PARTY

For President: Jill Stein.

For Vice-President: Ajamu Baraka.

CONSTITUTION PARTY

 For President: Darrell Castle.

For Vice-President: Scott N. Bradley.

Why limit your choice to just two parties?

In a fascist or Bolshevik dictatorship, I would be forced to vote for a single party that didn’t represent me.

Since I live in a democracy, why should I limit myself to voting for one of two parties that don’t represent me?

The Democratic presidential candidate is Hillary Clinton, who is literally a paid servant of Wall Street, who is almost certain to involve the United States in more wars and who may possibly bring on World War Three.

The Republican presidential candidate is Donald Trump, a crooked businessman who cares nothing for human rights, the Constitution or the rule of law.

So why vote for either of them?  Why not vote for a candidate who favors peace, opposes Wall Street and upholds historic Constitutional rights?

Now you may disagree.  You may think that either Clinton or Trump represents a positive good and not a lesser evil.  If you do, nothing in this post applies to you.  It is aimed at people who think they have to choose between a greater and a lesser evil.

Many liberal Democratic friends agree there is some truth in what I write about Clinton, but they see it as their duty—and my duty—to vote for Clinton.  They say that to vote for anybody but Clinton, or to refrain from voting, is the same as voting for Trump.

They have two main arguments, which I call the Nader argument and the Hitler argument, which I will address below.

The Nader argument is that people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 tipped the balance from Al Gore to George W. Bush.  So liberals and progressives should limit themselves to voting for the Democrat, no matter who, to prevent such a thing from happening again.

The Hitler argument is that Hitler came to power because the main German political parties—the Catholic Center Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Communist Party and the conservative anti-Hitler parties—were unable to bury their differences and unite against Hitler.   So liberals and progressives should bury their own convictions in the interests of stopping the supposedly Hitler-like candidate on the right.

What’s interesting about these arguments is that we all live in New York state, which is as certain to go for Hillary Clinton as anything can be.  All my presidential vote does is to express where my loyalty lies—to a political party or to my own beliefs.

Vaclav Havel, the great Czech playwright and dissident, wrote in his 1979 essay, The Power of the Powerless, about the manager of a fruit and vegetable shop under Communist rule putting a sign in his window saying, “Workers of the world, unite.”  The manager didn’t care about workers of the world uniting, and the sign wouldn’t affect whether workers of the world united or not.  What he was really doing by putting up the sign, Havel wrote, was saying: I am obedient and have the right to be left in peace.

I’m not comparing myself to somebody in a Communist country who would be persecuted for refusing to follow the party line.  The worst thing I risk is the mild disapproval of a few people.  What I am saying is that the issue is the same.  Where does my loyalty lie?

What are Bernie Sanders’ options if he loses?

What could Hillary Clinton offer Bernie Sanders if she wins?  What could he accept?  Above all, will he turn over his list of 2 million small donors and on what terms?

Some of Clinton’s supporters say they aren’t willing to modify the Democratic platform in order to placate Sanders.  From their standpoint, that makes sense.

Sanders already has done immense damage to Clinton by raising peoples’ hopes.  The whole argument for Clinton is that nothing much good can be done, and she is the one qualified to keep things from getting worse.

I think Clinton’s election strategy will be try to persuade corporate conservatives that she is preferable to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz—which, from their standpoint, she is.  She will treat progressives and Sanders supporters as an embarrassment—which, from her standpoint, they are.

What she could offer Sanders is the promise of not trying to block him from retaining his Democratic Senate committee assignments and seniority rights.  This would be important to him carrying on the progressive fight from the Senate.

His endorsement of Clinton wouldn’t help her much, but the lack of an endorsement, or a lukewarm endorsement, would hurt.

Sanders’ core supporters back him because of his positions on important issues.  Some still are under the illusion that Sanders and Clinton stand for the same things, except that he is a bold idealist and she is a cautious pragmatist.  The first group would not be influenced by his endorsement or lack of endorsement; the second group might.

The big thing that Sanders has to offer is his donors list—the 2 million people who kept him in the race, mostly with donations of less than $200 each.

The other Presidential debate

Four Presidential candidates—Jill Stein of the Green Party, Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party, Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party—had their own debate in Chicago the other night.

They were amateurish as performers.  Barack Obama and Mitt Romney could have done a better job than any of them of playing a President on TV or in the movies.  But they got into the substance of issues.  And for all their differences, they did agree on following the Constitution instead of fighting undeclared wars or locking people up without criminal charges.

Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson and Gary Johnson, but not Virgil Goode, agreed on the futility of the current war on drugs, and called for legalization of marijuana.  Stein and Anderson called for an expansion of the U.S. welfare state, while Johnson and Goode want to roll it back in order to balance the federal budget.

The last question they were asked was how they would amend the Constitution if they could.  Anderson would enact a gay rights amendment, Johnson and Goode would enact a congressional term limits amendment, and Stein would enact an amendment that stated spending money is not free speech, and corporations are not people.  Goode agreed with the latter, but said it would only require a congressional resolution.

Based on the debate, I now think I will vote for Jill Stein.

Click on Shift-Alt-Debate for Conor Friedersdorf’s thoughts on the alternate debate.

The debate was carried by the RT network, a Russian-owned English-language news network that broadcasts to the United States, and (I understand) by C-SPAN.

Two more candidates join the debates

Democracy Now broadcast an expanded version of the Presidential debates, with the Justice Party’s Rocky Anderson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein answering the questions asked of the Democratic Party’s Barack Obama and the Republican Party’s Mitt Romney.

Click on Green Party for more about the Green Party and Jill Stein.

Click on Justice Party for more about the Justice Party and Rocky Anderson.

Click on Libertarian Party for information about the Libertarian Party and its Presidential nominee, ex-Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico.