| TML: The New Year opened in the U.S. with the January 8 shooting in Tucson, Arizona of the U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. New agencies were saying that the shooter is likely mentally ill. Despite knowing who carried out the shooting, the airwaves in the U.S. are filled with talk about who is to blame for the shooting -- the so-called left-wing blaming the right-wing and vice-versa. We are told there is a problem with the tone of American political discourse and that this contributes to such senseless acts, and so forth. What is your opinion? Sandra L. Smith: Two things immediately come to mind. The first is that if this targeted assassination is the act of a mentally-ill individual, then when the U.S. carries out such acts all over the world, does it also mean the U.S. is mentally-ill? If that is the case, how can one provide a raison d'état for the U.S.? And why is Canada joining it? The second is that what is called political discourse in the United States is not political. Its aim is not to inform the polity but to disinform the polity. It is thus the other side of the same coin which considers targeted assassinations and violence as options. The U.S. has adopted the practice of carrying out the assassination of its enemies, of those it sees as interfering with its aims and interests and this includes "regime change." This is not new in the sense that through its covert agencies it has been doing this for a very long time. It was a covert operation in its Cold War against communism and led to the criminal dirty wars in many countries. All of it was to eliminate the political opposition, carry out coups d'état, establish military dictatorships, etc. Countless crimes against humanity have been committed by the U.S. and its henchmen in various parts of the world. But since the early nineties, using violence to effect regime change has become the U.S.'s weapon of choice. It started by providing justifications such as eliminating the danger of weapons of mass destruction, hunting for Al-Qaeda, eliminating the danger of terrorism.... Once the unfolding events totally discredited these justifications, it brazenly carries out its attacks in the name of U.S. interests. We are to presume that if it serves to protect the national security of the United States, it will preserve the national security of any country and anyone who is not also an enemy of everything the U.S. ruling class says is worthy of protection. The logic is that "You are either with us, or with the terrorists and if you are with the terrorists then you deserve to be annihilated." It is also to make sure politics are not used to sort out differences of opinion or interests. Besides using force to effect regime changes abroad, U.S. administrations in the name of defending U.S. national security have also endorsed the practice of assassinations. So when U.S. citizens, whether mentally ill or not mentally ill carry out such things, then the rulers do not want to look in the mirror and see themselves reflected there. They do not want to face the consequences of their actions. Such things are done in the first place to make sure no political movement of the people can be formed, that no political opposition can coalesce. Then the disinformation about them serves the same purpose. In this regard, what goes for political discourse in the U.S., especially the calls of the usurpers represented by the likes of Sarah Palin for the physical elimination of their rivals is a straightforward civil war scenario. These calls are countered with calls for unity, union, civility, One Nation politics, one America. This is the job of the Presidency -- to make sure civil war does not take place. This is why Obama pushes what is called bipartisanship, centrism, one-nation politics, one America. In U.S. history, failure to protect the union would mean a civil war in the United States between factions of the ruling class all over again. Does this mean one faction stands for violence and the other does not? No. Both sides advocate violence and use disinformation to smash the creation of public opinion, the formation of any political movement of the people. TML: What then should the American people do? SLS: The American working class must intervene with its own independent politics to develop a movement for political renewal. The American people are historically progressive, generous, courageous. Today they have to work out for themselves how to intervene so as to end the use of violence to smash the creation of public opinion. This cannot be done by siding with Obama against the Tea Party or with imperialist calls for sovereignty, etc. Solid anti-imperialist and proletarian internationalist stands must be taken. In my opinion what is taking place in the U.S., and Canada as well for that matter, should be taken up seriously. We are seeing dangerous developments emerge as a result of the failure of the political institutions to sort out the different interests on a political basis. Look at the kind of violence we saw in Canada as well at the G20 protests and the decisions vis-ŕ-vis security certificates and Harper's law and order agenda. The use of the state to crush the formation of political opinion is an alarming development. * Sandra L. Smith is the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). |