Raskin has been pushing ever more evil “lesser evilism” for a generation.
“’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” — Mark Twain
Rep. Jamie Raskin was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now this morning.
Goodman: “…are you for a permanent ceasefire?”
Raskin: “I’m for a permanent cessation of all military hostilities.” Whatever that means.
When asked if he was for a “cutoff of military aid to Israel” — Raskin responded: “I have not called for a cutoff of all military aid to Israel. I did vote against the last package because of the way that this war has been prosecuted. And I said from the beginning that Israel has a right to defend itself against the kinds of terrorist atrocities that we saw take place on October 7th, but only within the constraints of international law and international human rights law. And if you step outside of it, then that is a disaster for humanity.”
His words are out to confuse and conflate. As I noted in a piece published this morning, Israel has no legal right to defend itself in this context. Talk of Israel’s right to defend in this context itself actually helps gut international law. So Raskin’s talk of international law has the effect of obscuring the law.
What about the election? Raskin: “Amy, we’re living in a time of extraordinary fanaticism and illegality and threat to democracy and human rights.” Drink! All of Biden’s crimes must be put aside and you must vote for him in the name of “democracy”. A vision of “democracy” that turns voters into serfs.
This is solved in part with my VotePact.org strategy, which advocates that instead of you and a friend canceling out each other’s votes, one self-loathingly voting for Biden and the other for Trump, you vote for the third-party candidates you actually want.
This is regularly ignored by those pushing “lesser evil” voting. I was granted a few minutes to lay this out on Democracy Now a generation ago, in the closing days of the 2000 election. Ironically, also on the show was Raskin. He was pushing “vote swapping” — which is totally different. As I note in my About VotePact section:
This is not “vote swapping”—in which voters in so-called “swing” states who want to vote for third parties vote for establishment candidates because they’ve “swapped” votes with committed Democrats and Republicans who vote Green or Libertarian in so-called “safe” states. This was advocated by VotePair.org and VoteTrader.org, which got lots of media coverage, both now defunct. Unlike “swapping,” VotePact is not an attempt to “minimize the damage” of a third party run—it is designed to actually shake up the political spectrum, create a realignment and open the door to actual victory for independents or emerging parties. Also, VotePact does not result in people voting for candidates they don’t want—it frees people to vote for candidates they do want, but are held back by fear because of the limitations of the voting system. While the Electoral College is central to “vote swapping,” it is not at all central to VotePact, though VotePact does work best if the two voters are in the same state.
Now, Raskin claims to be deluded and incapable of seeing the Biden administration’s continued facilitation of Israel’s carnage: “I believe that the Biden administration is honestly and aggressively working for a ceasefire and for a return of the hostages that are being held by Hamas right now.”
Raskin claimed: “we need to get onto the path to a real two-state solution, which has been American policy … for decades.” The “path” to a two-state solution through the Oslo process that began in 1993 has been an obvious scam. If the US government actually wanted a two-state solution, it would have recognized Palestine decades ago. The Oslo process was a way of derailing the Madrid process, which was based on minimal international law.
Raskin pontificates about standing up to Trump regarding the rule of law and democracy while putting a wrecking ball to those things when it suits him. He hails Maryland’s pardon of 175,000 marijuana convictions while making voters into perpetual prisoners of the duopoly establishment.
Goodman didn’t ask about Raskin being the subject of protests and his votes on assaults on the First Amendment in the name of combating antisemitism. Anti-genocide protesters interrupting and questioning Raskin at at least one recent event in Maryland. Ben Spielberg noted: “For those wondering why peace protesters have been interrupting” Raskin, “his vote today in favor of a ridiculous resolution equating a call for Palestinian liberation with antisemitism should give you an idea.”
Even Michelle Goldberg in the New York Times noted: “Jamie Raskin, a House Democrat and former constitutional law professor, wrote a statement explaining the problems with the bill at length, before justifying his ‘yes’ vote with a kind of defeated shrug: ‘At this moment of anguish and confusion over the dangerous surge of antisemitism, authoritarianism and racism all over the country and the world, it seems unlikely that this meaningless ‘gotcha’ legislation can help much — but neither can it hurt much, and it may now bring some people despairing over manifestations of antisemitism a sense of consolation.’ There are few people in Congress I admire more than Raskin, but I don’t agree that the bill is harmless, and I hope someone in the Senate will stop it.”
Why would anyone paying any attention admire this person who touts himself as a great defender of constitutional government and democracy?