Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,
The UniParty's Day Of Infamy, Part 1
The clusterf*ck in the US House of Representatives this past weekend is surely the final straw. The dreadful grip of the UniParty on national security policy has finally produced sheer madness in a single package. To wit:
$95 billion of foreign aid boondoggles that do not benefit America’s homeland security in the slightest.
An extension of section 702 of FISA that wantonly expands an already egregious affront to the Fourth Amendment.
The illegal transfer of billions of sovereign assets stolen from Russia to its enemies in Kiev.
A national security ban on 15-second TikTok videos about dances, pranks, pets and poppycock viewed overwhelmingly by under 30-year-old Americans whose viewing habits are of zero value to the Chicoms in Beijing.
It is bad enough that there is not an iota of informed consideration behind any of this. But what is really alarming is that every single House Democrat (210) voted in favor of $61 billion for the Ukrainian Demolition Derby. This included a 97-0 vote among so-called Dem “progressives”, who also voted 96-0 in favor of aid to Taiwan—the purpose of which is surely not a more pacific neighborhood on the Pacific Rim.
Once upon a time, the Democrats were the party of the peace candidates. No more, which surely explains their fury at RFK, who is.
At the same time, only fourteen Republicans voted against all four components of this wholesale assault on constitutional liberty and fiscal rectitude. As we have previously documented, America is now careening on fiscal automatic pilot toward a $140 trillion 4/23/24, 12:40 PM The UniParty’s Day of Infamy, Part 1 https://davidstockman.substack.com/p/the-unipartys-day-of-infamy-part 2/11 public debt by mid-century, but the overwhelming share of House Republicans choose to hammer the US economy with even more debt to fund pointless foreign aid boondoggles, while shackling private citizens and entrepreneurs with government intrusions based on the paranoid lies of the national security state.
In this context it was the predictable histrionics of the bevy of neocon warmongers on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal that brought home the full extent of the challenge. Namely, that the mainstream narrative in the Imperial City and among the nation’s elite media is so utterly wrong-headed and morally obtuse that only the complete abandonment of the core framework of contemporary national security policy can save the day.
Accordingly, the “domino” theory needs be repudiated once and for all. Likewise, the Washington-Jefferson doctrine of “no entangling alliances” needs be revived in place of the vestigial cold war notion that informs Washington’s current destructive and bankrupting policies. We are referring to the wholly obsolete notion that America’s homeland security depends upon a worldwide system of military alliances, bases and kinetic power projection capabilities that enable Washington to function as the great Global Hegemon, who is ready, willing and able to intervene in virtually any spate that erupts among the 8 billion peoples of the planet.
The fourteen GOP stalwarts listed below essentially said, no dice to these tired, dangerous, costly and risible formulations: Neither Russia nor China pose even a remote military threat to the American homeland, while proxy wars and economic sanctions against “adversaries” demonized by the Deep State actually undermine domestic liberty and prosperity for no justifiable reason of homeland security at all.
With respect to the latter, for instance, there is no real reason for the sweeping multihundred billion cost to the American economy of sanctions and trade restrictions on China, Iran or Russia. And, similarly, there are no security threats in the world today that even remotely justify the national security state’s intrusion into the rights and privacies of American citizens.
Still, the pseudo-intellectuals at the WSJ trotted out Hitler, Tojo and the “isolationist” epithet as if these references prove anything at all, when, in fact, none have any real relevance to the world of today. There are simply no industrial state tyrants on the march anywhere on the global horizon that resemble even the apparent facts of the 1930s, let alone the actual historical realities of the matter.
The fact is, Stalin and Hitler were sui generis. They were one-time accidents of history arising from the folly of Versailles and the punitive peace of the victors enabled by Woodrow Wilson’s pointless intervention in a European war that would have otherwise ended in stalemate and the mutual exhaustion and bankruptcy of all the combatants.
That is to say, the DNA of the world’s nations is not infected with incipient tendencies toward totalitarianism and aggression. Maintaining the global peace and pacific commerce of the nations does not depend upon an alliance of virtuous interventionists or a Global Hegemon, prepared to enforce its writ at the slightest breakout of local and regional quarrels and conflicts.
At the end of the day, laissez faire is the path to prosperity in both economics and international affairs. Military alliances and Hegemons everywhere and always fall captive to the arms merchants they foster.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the honor roll from last weekend’s rampage of folly by the UniParty consists of a mere 14 House Republicans, who were awarded the scarlet “I” by the war-happy globalists at the Wall Street Journal:
Fourteen Republicans voted against all four bills on the House floor, including the one that would force a sale of TikTok from Chinese ownership. Here’s the dishonor roll in alphabetical order: Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Elijah Crane (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Andy Harris (Md.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Troy Nehls (Texas), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.), Chip Roy (Texas).
The unavoidable meaning of the votes is that these Members don’t believe the U.S. should support allies threatened by authoritarians on the march. Like Republicans in the 1930s who slept while Hitler and Tojo advanced, these Republicans apparently think America can sit out these fights in splendid isolation. But history suggests that if they prevail, American sons and daughters would eventually have to fight. Better to help allies who want to help themselves.
The isolationist caucus lost this round, but this GOP tendency is dangerous. Another 17 Members voted for arms for Israel but not for Taiwan and Ukraine. Do they want to encourage a Chinese invasion? Perhaps if Florida is attacked, they’ll awaken to the reality of the world’s growing dangers.
No, Florida is not about to be attacked by Putin, Xi or the Ayatollahs. This is just scary bedtime story stuff that no informed adult should accord any credibility whatsoever.
Needless to say, the GOP most rabid neocon and warmonger, Senator Lindsay Graham, is neither informed nor, apparently, even of adult mind.
His incoherent, bloodthirsty rant actually made the WSJ editorialists sound thoughtful by comparison.
“Here’s what I will tell you. If you give Putin Ukraine, he will not stop,” Graham said during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “This is not about containing NATO and if you give him Ukraine, there goes Taiwan because China’s watching to see what we do.”
“I want to know what they’re talking about over there before they kill us here. And if you shut this thing down, you’ve turned the war into a crime,” Graham said. “We’re not fighting our crime, we’re finding a bunch of people who would kill all of us if they could get here. So, when you intercept information from a foreigner overseas talking about America, I want to know what they’re talking about.”
The Ukranian military, with our help, has killed about 50 percent of the combat power of the Russians,” Graham said Sunday. “This is the year [of] more. They’re going to have more weapons, but we also want them to have new weapons.”
Nor was the House GOP to be outdone by Senator Graham’s bellicose fulminations. Recently resigned Rep. Ken Buck let it be known that if you actually understand that America’s homeland security is in no way enhanced by Washington’s misguided proxy war on Russia, as does Rep. Marjorie Greene, why then you surely are a traitor in the pay of Vlad Putin himself:
“Well, Moscow Marjorie has reached a new low,” Buck said of his former colleague.
“She is just mouthing the Russian propaganda and really hurting American foreign policy in the process. She’s acting completely irresponsibly. And again, when history looks at this period of time, Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting for its freedom, and we should be with the freedom fighters in this war.”
Of course, the insanity of $200 billion of NATO funds already wasted; hundreds of thousands dead; millions fleeing the country to avoid the mayhem of war and the cruelty of being drafted as cannon fodder to serve the perverted pleasure of Washington’s armchair warriors; and the civilian infrastructure of one of Europe’s largest countries in shambles—all have nothing whatsoever to do with “freedom fighters”.
The undeniable fact is that there is nothing at stake worth fighting for in Ukraine that even remotely resembles democratic virtue. It has been a cesspool of egregious corruption virtually since the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1991, and recently even required a visit from the head of the CIA to tell Zelensky and his fellow thieves to “knock it off” on the corruption front.
To the contrary, as the venerable anti-war writer William Astore put it, the real purpose of Ukrainian installment of the Forever Wars is the enrichment of the merchants of death who have captured the levers of power in Washington:
Of course, this is yet another triumph for the MICIMATT: the military-industrialcongressional-intelligence-media-academe-think-tank complex. Its power and greed are almost irresistible. Add that to AIPAC, threat inflation, and fear-mongering and perhaps it is irresistible until the U.S. empire final collapses under the weight of its own folly.
Yet all of the mindless bellicosity of the Washington interventionists is not simply ludicrous nonsense from an empirical viewpoint. More importantly, the current neocon/interventionist Washington consensus blatantly repudiates the sage advice of both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from more than 220 years ago. Together they articulated a theory of foreign policy that was not “isolationist” at all, but realist and evidence-based.
That is, these wise Founders held that foreign policy should be based on the facts and circumstances of national interest at any given point in time, and that when the facts change and alliances become obsolete, they should be jettisoned.
From George Washington’s Farewell Address: “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities… it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”
As further amplified by Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address, this realist doctrine viewed external military alliances to be arrangements of convenience and should be freely abandoned or reversed as indicated by changing needs of the national interest. Citing Washington’s Farewell Address as his inspiration, Jefferson described the doctrine as-
“peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.”
That famous phrase is precisely the policy cornerstone that fits today’s realities. America’s homeland security doesn’t require militarized alliances or the wherewithal to maraud militarily around the globe because there are no military-industrial-technological powers that can threaten its security.
Accordingly, institutions like NATO may well have served the national interest 70 years ago with respect to Stalinist Russia and its military capacities and intentions toward its erstwhile but estranged wartime allies in the West. But even there the open archives from both sides of the cold war cast considerable doubt on whether Stalin and world communism were actually on the march or had either the intention or military capability to enslave western Europe, to say nothing of the American homeland on the far side of the Atlantic and Pacific Moats.
As it happened, the Henry Wallace peaceful accommodationist wing of the Roosevelt coalition may have been closer to the truth than the Wall Street based coteries of Henry Stimson, James Forrestal, Dean Acheson and the abominable Dulles Bothers, who actually formulated the nation’s cold war policies during that era.
But that question was resolved once and for all in 1991 when the Soviet Union disappeared into the dustbin of history, and not because of NATO or even Reagan’s Star Wars threat. The real reason was that centralized state communism doesn’t work: Neither for the people it exploits and oppresses, nor for the ruling elites and state-empowered comrades who may have delusions of grandeur about the sustainability of their own rule, to saying nothing of extending it to peoples beyond their borders.
Yet even as the true lesson of Soviet Communism’s collapse marched across the pages of history after 1991, the entrenched military-industrial-foreign policy apparatus was not about to relinquish its power, budgets and perks, just as Eisenhower had warned in another of America’s great Farewell Addresses in 1961. In fact, NATO morphed into something far more obnoxious than a cancellable alliance that had accomplished its mission and was slated for early retirement under the Washington-Jefferson doctrine.
And well it should have been because after 1991, there was no there, there. The Russian rump of the Soviet Union even today has a GDP of merely $2.2 trillion compared to the $28 trillion GDP of the USA and $46 trillion for all 32 NATO countries combined. And Russia has a military budget of barely 6% of NATO’s $1.25 trillion of combined defense expenditures and but one aircraft carrier.
Furthermore, the latter is a 20th century relic that has been in drydock repair since 2017 and is outfitted with neither an armada of escort ships and warplanes or even a crew. The Russian military, therefore, has no way to land on the shores of New Jersey or even enter the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, for that matter. Nor is Putin stupid enough to invade Poland, which offers nothing but centuries of animosity to all things Russian.
Then again, if Poland really believed all the anti-Putin rhetoric spouted by its rightwing government, it would be spending a lot more on defense in 2024 than $30 billion and 3.1% of GDP; nor would it be offering to house NATO nuclear weapons next door to the Russian Bear, as its president did this week.
“If our allies decide to deploy nuclear arms on our territory as part of nuclear sharing, to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank, we are ready to do so,” Polish President Andrzej Duda said in an interview published today by the Fakt newspaper.
In truth, Duda’s offer is just another case of client state politics run amuck. Rid the scene of Washington’s entangling alliance with the relic of NATO, and the voters of Poland would be looking for a new government. And they would do so even as they were sending it leaders to Moscow to seek mutual accommodation from the natural trade and commercial relationships that are inherent in its geography.
The fact is, 33-years after the demise of the Soviet Union NATO is not simply a pointless obsolete relic. It has morphed into the greatest armaments marketing and sales organization in the history of mankind. The only benefit that came from betraying Bush the Elder’s promise to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand a “single inch” to the east has accrued to the defense contractors, especially the US based giants.
As RFK has cogently pointed out, when the NATO alliance mushroomed from 16 nations to now 32 countries, every one of the new members had to conform their weapons systems and munitions to NATO standards. Not suprisingly, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics and United Technologies prospered mightily–even as they effectively roamed the halls of Congress spreading the lies embedded in the above Wall Street Journal rendition of dominoes and the essentiality of Washington’s obsolete global alliances.
Yet two of the four components of Saturday’s abomination were directed against China, predicated on the same illusion that led to the vast threat-inflation with respect to the Soviet Union. To wit, Chinese Communism, even in the thinly veiled guise of “red capitalism”, is no more viable or sustainable than the Soviet version.
At the end of the day, if you don’t have free markets, constitutionally protected property and personal rights of expression and assembly and honest bankruptcy courts to dispose of failed economic bets, you do not have a sustainable economy or permanently rising prosperity. Period.
To the contrary, China is a vast house of economic cards and statist malignancies propped up by $50 trillion of unpayable debt incurred in barely two decades. Accordingly, it is utterly dependent upon the hard currency earnings from $3.5 trillion of annual exports, mainly to the West, to keep its vast excess of infrastructure and housing investment from capsizing the whole Rube Goldberg Contraption. In the event of war, this export lifeline would soon find its way to Davy Jones’ Locker, along with China’s entire jerry-built economy.
So, it’s not going to be invading anyone, probably not even Taiwan. Chairman Xi and his team of rulers may love to quote Mao and color themselves red ideologically, but they also know that what stands between them and an uprising of China’s oppressed 1.5 billion inhabitants is a consistent and reasonably rising level of internal prosperity.
That rules out a Chinese Armada of black ships heading for the coast of California. Indeed, even the Navy they have today consists of two repurposed Soviet Era aircraft carriers and one new build of far less formidable and lethal capacity than Washington current Gerald Ford class carriers. And its other 400 Navy vessels consists largely of coastal patrol vessels that likely would not make it to the shores of California in one piece.
In terms of lethal firepower, in fact, the US Navy has 4.6 million tons of displacement, averaging 15,000 tons per ship. By contrast, China’s Navy has but 2.0 million tons of displacement, averaging only 5,000 tons per boat. That is to say, the Chinese Navy is totally visible, assessable and trackable, and is not remotely of the size and lethality that would make an invasion of America remotely plausible.
Finally, the main military capacity that is needed for homeland security in the present world, of course, is America’s triad strategic deterrent including 3,800 nuclear warheads. At any moment in time these are scrambled and dispersed -
along the ocean bottoms among 16 Ohio class subs each bearing 80 independently targetable warheads.
aloft in the global airspace on a fleet of 66 B-2 and B-52 heavy bombers
buried deep in hardened underground silos bearing more than 1,000 ICBM warheads.
This awesome retaliatory force cannot possibly be detected or 100% neutralized by a would-be nuclear blackmailer.
As it happens, the triad deterrent costs about $65 billion per year according to a recent CBO analysis, and full protection of the US shorelines and airspace behind the great ocean moats could bring a total Fortress America model of homeland defense to $400 billion per annum, at most.
The other $500 billion in today’s 050 function represents the ill-gotten budgetary conquests of the military-industrial-intelligence complex, and all the think tanks, NGOs and beltway bandits who make a living getting paid by DOD, State, AID, NED etc. to manufacturing inflated threats and scary stories about sinister foreigners. Such malefic malarky was on full display in the US House last weekend. Accordingly, there is only one cure. A powerful force from outside the beltway needs to splinter the UniParty into a thousand pieces.
That’s the real mission of Robert F Kennedy’s Jr. independent candidacy for President, as we will further amplify in Part 2.
