World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US House passes voting rights bill, restoring critical provision of landmark law

      by

      US voting rightsUS House passes voting rights bill, restoring critical provision of landmark lawBill that requires places with history of discrimination to be under federal supervision passes 219-212 – but could fail in the Senate Sam Levine in New YorkTue 24 Aug 2021 19.25 EDTLast modified on Tue 24 Aug 2021 22.25 EDTThe US House of Representatives has passed an update to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, restoring a critical provision of the landmark civil rights law that requires places with a history of voting discrimination to be under federal supervision.The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act passed 219-212 on a party-line vote.Kamala Harris Vietnam trip delayed after two US officials report Havana syndromeRead moreThe bill now faces an uncertain future in the US Senate, where it needs the support of 10 Republican Senators to overcome the filibuster and pass. While Senator Joe Manchin, a key Democratic swing vote, supports the bill, just one Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has indicated that she does.The House passed a similar version of the legislation in 2019, gaining just one GOP vote, but it never passed the Senate, which was then under GOP control.The legislation is one of two pillars of congressional Democrats’ push to protect voting rights. It sets a 25-year look-back period for assessing voting rights in jurisdictions. If courts have documented at least 15 voting rights violations in a state over that period, the state will have to get any change in voting rules approved by the federal government before it goes into effect (if the violation is committed by the state as a whole only 10 violations are required to trigger federal oversight).The updated formula comes eight years after the US supreme court said the formula in the law that determined which states were subject to pre-clearance was outdated and struck it down. Voting advocates have said that ruling, in a case called Shelby County v Holder, has offered states a green light to discriminate against Black voters.“Old battles have indeed become new again. While literacy tests and poll taxes no longer exist, certain states and local jurisdictions have passed laws that are modern day barriers to voting,” Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat who represents Selma in Congress, said on the floor of the House Tuesday.The states that would have to get election changes approved are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas, Peyton McCrary, a former Justice Department historian, testified earlier this month. Several large counties in the US, including Los Angeles county in California, Cook county in Illinois, Westchester county in New York, Cuyahoga County in Ohio, and Northampton County in Virginia could also be covered, according to McCrary.The law also outlines several procedures that would be subject to federal pre-clearance everywhere in the country, including changes to voter ID laws, reductions in polling locations and changes in policies that determine who gets removed from the voter rolls.Republicans decried the measure as unnecessary, saying it gives the federal government too much power to oversee elections.“If you vote for this legislation, you are voting for a federal takeover of elections,” said congressman Rodney Davis, an Illinois Republican. “I hope my colleagues and the American people will see this bill for what it is, a partisan power-grab.”During debate on the bill, Democrats scoffed at the notion that the bill was not needed. They noted it came as Republican lawmakers across the country have taken up hundreds of bills to enact voting restrictions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described it as “the worst voter suppression campaign in America since Jim Crow”.While federal pre-clearance is the most touted portion of the bill, the legislation also includes several other new provisions to protect voting rights. It essentially undoes a supreme court decision from earlier this year that makes it extremely difficult to bring challenges to voting laws under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It also strengthens protections under the Voting Rights Act for minority voters during the redistricting process.The legislation would also address two issues that emerged in the unprecedented slew of litigation during the 2020 election. First, courts could not simply decline to strike down a law because an election is close – something that several courts did in 2020. Second, courts would have to offer an explanation for their reasoning in voting rights cases, a provision designed to take aim at the supreme court’s practice of not issuing explanations in emergency cases on its “shadow docket.”Beyond the John Lewis bill, Democrats are also trying to pass the For The People Act, sweeping legislation that would outlaw severe partisan gerrymandering, set minimum requirements for early voting and require automatic, same-day and online voter registration, among other measures. Voting rights experts say both measures are needed to fully protect voting rights, though Democrats have not unveiled a plan to get either around the filibuster.TopicsUS voting rightsUS politicsDemocratsUS CongressRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the G7’s great game: the Taliban rules in Kabul | Editorial

      by

      OpinionAfghanistanThe Guardian view on the G7’s great game: the Taliban rules in KabulEditorialOrdinary Afghans will pay the highest price for the west’s defeated ambitions Tue 24 Aug 2021 14.01 EDTLast modified on Tue 24 Aug 2021 14.58 EDTIt speaks volumes about the world today that a US president was more worried about the Taliban looking weak than about his western allies. Britain, France and Germany asked Joe Biden to continue evacuating civilians from Kabul past his self-imposed deadline of 31 August. But the US rejected these requests. Mr Biden wanted to end the chaotic TV scenes from Afghanistan that hurt his domestic poll ratings. But he also accepted that Kabul’s new rulers could not afford to look weak in front of their rival Isis, which is looking for an opportunity to embarrass its Taliban peer.The west’s airlift will therefore be over by next Tuesday. It is the Afghan people who will pay the highest price for the west’s defeated ambitions for their country. They now face living under Taliban rule for a second time. There is no guarantee that a grinding civil war is over. The scale of the west’s failure is not just that the world’s biggest economies will almost certainly fail to evacuate all those who were employed by its armies and diplomats. It is that we have let down a generation of urban Afghans, especially women, who grew up believing that their lives would be better than their parents’.Afghanistan faces a series of crises that would tax the most able technocrats. Yet at the country’s helm is the world’s most obscurantist leadership. Covid has a long way to run in Afghanistan, but only 2% of the population has been vaccinated. The Taliban struggle with the idea of female doctors working in hospitals, let alone how to tackle coronavirus. A drought has caused famine in rural parts of the country, but Afghanistan’s new rulers see humanitarian work as the preserve of charities rather than the state.The Taliban have no experience of legislating within a sophisticated political and legal framework, especially one of the kind modelled on western democracies. When they last ran the country, a cash economy did not exist. In the Afghan central bank, more than two decades ago, the Taliban installed military commanders. One died on the battlefield while still the bank’s governor.The west’s economic model for Afghanistan was, at best, a work in progress. The country has become dependent on international assistance, while poverty rates have increased from a third of the population to more than a half. Unless something extraordinary happens, foreign aid will dry up, leaving the Taliban not only unable to pay for government salaries but also without the resources to cover Afghanistan’s import bill. With the US refusing to hand over Kabul’s dollar reserves, the Afghan currency is likely to collapse in value, sparking a price spiral. Inflation and scarcity are not exactly solid foundations on which to base the stability of a regime.One cannot import development, only encourage it from within. Two Asian countries that have risen by throwing off outside rule – Vietnam and Bangladesh – show that it is possible to wean a country off foreign aid in a substantial way by creating an industrial base. The new Kabul regime is more likely to fall back on opium production, confirming its global pariah status while further diminishing the nation’s productive capacity.Afghanistan’s complexity – its patchwork of ethnicities, traditions and minimal governance – makes it hard to understand. The G7 might be able to use a carrot-and-stick approach with the Taliban. It could offer cash in return for the group respecting human rights or threaten sanctions if Kabul breaks promises. The world, ultimately, will have to adjust to American interest in Afghanistan assuming more conventional proportions. Washington, in the future, will monitor jihadist threats from afar and seek to preserve political balance in Kabul. What has disappeared is the latest attempt to impose a new Afghan society on top of an old one.TopicsAfghanistanOpinionTalibanJoe BidenSouth and Central AsiaCoronavirusUS politicsForeign policyeditorialsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      What About Those Who Were Right on Afghanistan?

      by

      America’s corporate media are ringing with recriminations over the humiliating US military defeat in Afghanistan. But very little of the criticism goes to the root of the problem, which was the original decision to militarily invade and occupy Afghanistan in the first place. That decision set in motion a cycle of violence and chaos that no subsequent US policy or military strategy could resolve over the next 20 years — in Afghanistan, Iraq or any of the other countries swept up in America’s post-9/11 wars.

      While Americans were reeling in shock at the images of airliners crashing into buildings on September 11, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a meeting in an intact part of the Pentagon. Undersecretary Stephen Cambone’s notes from that meeting spell out how quickly and blindly US officials prepared to plunge our nation into the graveyards of empire in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. Cambone wrote that Rumsfeld wanted “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden] … Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

      What the World Can Learn From the Events in Afghanistan

      READ MORE

      So, within hours of these horrific crimes in the United States, the central question senior US officials were asking was not how to investigate them and hold the perpetrators accountable, but how to use this “Pearl Harbor” moment to justify wars, regime changes and militarism on a global scale.

      Three days later, Congress passed a bill authorizing the US president, George W. Bush, to use military force “against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” 

      In 2016, the Congressional Research Service reported that this Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) had been cited to justify 37 distinct military operations in 14 different countries and at sea. The vast majority of the people killed, maimed or displaced in these operations had nothing to do with the crimes of September 11. Successive US administrations have repeatedly ignored the actual wording of the authorization, which only authorized the use of force against those involved in some way in the 9/11 attacks. 

      Speaking Out

      The only member of Congress who had the wisdom and courage to vote against the 2001 AUMF was Barbara Lee of Oakland. She compared it to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution and warned her colleagues that it would inevitably be used in the same expansive and illegitimate way. The final words of her floor speech echo presciently through the 20-year-long spiral of violence, chaos and war crimes it unleashed: “As we act, let us not become the evil we deplore.” 

      Embed from Getty Images

      In a meeting at Camp David that weekend, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz argued forcefully for an attack on Iraq, even before Afghanistan. Bush insisted Afghanistan must come first, but he privately promised the Defense Policy Board chairman, Richard Perle, that Iraq would be their next target.

      In the days after September 11, the US corporate media followed the Bush administration’s lead, and the public heard only rare, isolated voices questioning whether war was the correct response to the crimes committed. But former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor Ben Ferencz spoke to NPR a week after 9/11, and he explained that attacking Afghanistan was not only unwise and dangerous, but it was not a legitimate response to these crimes. NPR’s Katy Clark struggled to understand what he was saying:

      “Clark: …do you think that the talk of retaliation is not a legitimate response to the death of 5,000 [sic] people?

      Ferencz: It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done.

      Clark: No one is saying we’re going to punish those who are not responsible.

      Ferencz: We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don’t believe in what has happened, who don’t approve of what has happened.

      Clark: So you are saying that you see no appropriate role for the military in this.

      Ferencz: I wouldn’t say there is no appropriate role, but the role should be consistent with our ideals. We shouldn’t let them kill our principles at the same time they kill our people. And our principles are respect for the rule of law. Not charging in blindly and killing people because we are blinded by our tears and our rage.”

      The drumbeat of war pervaded the airwaves, twisting 9/11 into a powerful propaganda narrative to whip up the fear of terrorism and justify the march to war. But many Americans shared the reservations of Lee and Ferencz, understanding enough of their country’s history to recognize that the 9/11 tragedy was being hijacked by the same military-industrial complex that produced the debacle in Vietnam and keeps reinventing itself generation after generation to support and profit from American wars, coups and militarism. 

      Making a Statement

      On September 28, 2001, the Socialist Worker website published statements by 15 writers and activists under the heading, “Why We Say No to War and Hate.” They included Noam Chomsky, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan and one of these authors (Medea Benjamin). The statements took aim at the Bush administration’s attacks on civil liberties at home and abroad, as well as its plans for war on Afghanistan. 

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      The late academic and author Chalmers Johnson wrote that 9/11 was not an attack on the United States, but “an attack on U.S. foreign policy.” Edward Herman predicted “massive civilian casualties.” Matt Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive magazine, wrote that “For every innocent person Bush kills in this war, five or ten terrorists will arise.” Benjamin wrote that “a military response will only create more of the hatred against the U.S. that created this terrorism in the first place.” The analysis was correct and the predictions were prescient. The media and US politicians should start listening to the voices of peace and sanity instead of lying, delusional warmongers.

      What leads to catastrophes like the US war in Afghanistan is not the absence of convincing anti-war voices, but that the political and media systems routinely marginalize and ignore voices like those of Lee, Ferencz and the 15 writers and activists. 

      That is not because we are wrong and the belligerent voices they listen to are right. They marginalize us precisely because we are right and they are wrong, and because serious, rational debates over war, peace and military spending would jeopardize some of the most powerful and corrupt vested interests that dominate and control US politics on a bipartisan basis.  

      In every foreign policy crisis, the very existence of our military’s enormous destructive capacity and the myths our leaders promote to justify it converge in an orgy of self-serving interests and political pressures to stoke our fears and pretend that there are military “solutions” for them. 

      Another War

      Losing the Vietnam War was a serious reality check on the limits of US military power. As the junior officers who fought in Vietnam rose through the ranks to become America’s military leaders, they acted more cautiously and realistically for the next 20 years. But the end of the Cold War opened the door to an ambitious new generation of warmongers who were determined to capitalize on the US post-Cold War “power dividend.” 

      Madeleine Albright spoke for this emerging new breed of war-hawks when she confronted General Colin Powell in 1992 with her question, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” As secretary of state during Bill Clinton’s second term, Albright engineered the first of a series of illegal US invasions to carve out an independent Kosovo from the splintered remains of Yugoslavia. When UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told her his government was “having trouble with our lawyers” over the illegality of the NATO war plan, Albright said they should just “get new lawyers.”

      In the 1990s, the neocons and liberal interventionists dismissed and marginalized the idea that non-military, non-coercive approaches can more effectively resolve foreign policy problems without the horrors of war or deadly sanctions. This bipartisan war lobby then exploited the 9/11 attacks to consolidate and expand their control of US foreign policy.

      Embed from Getty Images

      But after spending trillions of dollars and killing countless numbers of people, the abysmal record of US war-making since World War II remains a tragic litany of failure and defeat, even on its own terms. The only wars the United States has won since 1945 have been limited conflicts to recover small neo-colonial outposts in Grenada, Panama and Kuwait. Every time the United States has expanded its military ambitions to attack or invade larger or more independent countries, the results have been universally catastrophic.

      So, our country’s absurd investment of 66% of discretionary federal spending in destructive weapons, and recruiting and training young Americans to use them, does not make us safer but only encourages our leaders to unleash pointless violence and chaos on our neighbors around the world.

      Most of our neighbors have grasped by now that these forces and the dysfunctional US political system that keeps them at its disposal pose a serious threat to peace and to their own aspirations for democracy. Few people in other countries want any part of America’s wars, or its revived Cold War against China and Russia, and these trends are most pronounced among long-time US allies in Europe and its traditional “backyard” in Canada and Latin America.

      Change the Way We Live

      On October 19, 2001, Rumsfeld addressed B-2 bomber crews at Whiteman AFB in Missouri as they prepared to take off across the world to inflict misdirected vengeance on the long-suffering people of Afghanistan. He told them, “We have two choices. Either we change the way we live, or we must change the way they live. We choose the latter. And you are the ones who will help achieve that goal.”

      Now that dropping tens of thousands of bombs and missiles on the people of Afghanistan for 20 years has failed to change the way they live, apart from killing hundreds of thousands of them and destroying their homes, we must instead, as Rumsfeld said, change the way we live. 

      We should start by finally listening to Barbara Lee. First, we should pass her bill to repeal the two post-9/11 AUMFs that launched our 20-year fiasco in Afghanistan and other wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Then, we should pass her bill to redirect $350 billion per year from the US military budget (roughly a 50% cut) to “increase our diplomatic capacity and for domestic programs that will keep our Nation and our people safer.” 

      Finally reining in America’s out-of-control militarism would be a wise and appropriate response to its epic defeat in Afghanistan, before the same corrupt interests drag us into even more dangerous wars against more formidable enemies than the Taliban.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Should California Governor Gavin Newsom Be Recalled?

      by

      It is turning out to be strange summer in California. The entire West Coast has been experiencing unprecedented heatwaves and wildfires, a sure sign that climate change is taking its toll on our planet. California is also in the midst of political turmoil, fueled by partisan hatred against its Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. The effort to recall him from a job he was elected to in 2018 started as a tepid attempt in June of last year, spread like a wildfire in November and is suffocating the entire state like a summer heatwave today.

      Congress Adjourns While the Nation Burns

      READ MORE

      In the gubernatorial election, Newsom polled 61.9% of the votes and thrashed his Republican opponent, John Cox, handsomely. Newsom secured more than 7.7 million votes, as opposed to the 4.7 million that Cox received.

      Sadly, California is a state in which forcing a recall election is not difficult. A signed petition that adds up to 12% of the votes most recently cast for the targeted office is sufficient to get a recall election to happen. To reach that number, fewer than 1.5 million voters would need to put their names on the petition. Or, looked at another way, if 32% of the Republicans who voted for Cox were to complete a petition, Newsom’s job would be in jeopardy.

      On April 26, the California secretary of state confirmed that the threshold was met. The proceedings have been set in motion, sending Californians back for a special election on September 14 to decide if Newsom is to be recalled or not.

      Partisan Arguments, Specious at Best

      The recall effort was launched last year with unsubstantiated partisan claims blaming the sitting governor for anything conceivable: “Unaffordable housing. Record homelessness. Rising crime. Failing schools. Independent contractors thrown out of work. Exploding pension debt. And now, a locked down population while the prisons are emptied. Hold Gavin Newsom accountable. Gavin Newsom must go.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      Common sense would tell anyone that none of this could have come to pass in the two years since Newsom assumed his job as the governor of the state. Truth be told, it is impossible to eradicate homelessness and crime and make housing affordable in this country. The root cause for many of the problems that apparently rankle the Republicans behind the recall effort is capitalism and the economic inequity that is fast becoming an insurmountable chasm. Yet, in their infinite wisdom, they chose to pinpoint Newsom as the single reason for the failings of an entire nation that has embraced capitalism as the way of life.

      The assertion that recall Republicans make regarding Newsom emptying the prisons is specious. While it is true that some 76,000 inmates would become eligible for an earlier release with good behavior, it is a far cry from replacement candidate Cox’s claim that Newsom has already released them into an unsuspecting population that would unleash a crime wave in California.

      In California, about 1,000 prison inmates serve as firefighters, albeit for a paltry wage, as part of the fire-camp program that began in 1946. In yet another false claim, the recall proponents say that Newsom is weakening California’s firefighting capability by releasing prison inmates. On the contrary, the governor signed AB 2147, a bill that will ease the path for such inmates to become firefighters following their release.

      As the COVID-19 pandemic continued to grip the world, unleashing wave after wave in different countries at different times, Newsom committed a political blunder in November 2020. He and at least 12 others dined at an exclusive restaurant in Napa County, celebrating the birthday of a friend. The backlash was swift and the recall momentum gathered strength, with the additional ammunition Newsom had gifted the recall proponents on a platter.

      Accountability, a Game of Double Standards

      It is not unreasonable to expect elected officials to be held accountable. However, accountability is nebulous in American politics, employing different standards for Republicans and Democrats.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, has not only lifted the mask mandate in schools, but he has threatened to pull public funding should school districts choose to make mask-wearing compulsory. DeSantis faces neither recall nor accountability for his actions that is pushing his state into dire straits.

      Texas Governor Greg Abbott, also a Republican, has issued executive orders that prohibit mandating vaccination or masks by local government and state agencies. Abbott opines that wearing a mask and choosing to be vaccinated are matters of personal responsibility and freedom.

      Texas is on the brink of a COVID-19 surge that it may not have seen before, something Abbott could prevent if he chooses to act as a responsible leader. After testing positive for COVID-19, Abbott, who has been vaccinated, quickly recovered from the disease, having the luxury of receiving Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatment. “I am told that my infection was brief and mild because of the vaccination I received,” Abbott said. “So, I encourage others who have not yet received the vaccination to consider getting one.” Despite the efficacy of the vaccination, Abbott’s statement is a lukewarm endorsement of the importance of getting vaccinated, distancing himself as much as possible from the science of the cure.

      Openly shirking his responsibility, Mississippi’s Republican governor, Tate Reeves, refuses to take a stand and mandate either vaccination or masks, despite a 13-year-old girl dying from COVID-19 in a mask-optional school district.

      The recall effort in California was launched in the spring of 2020, during the early stages of the pandemic, well before Newsom committed the political gaffe of dining in Napa. The governor took a cautious approach to the pandemic, putting California in a lockdown before other parts of the country, protecting the people better than any red state. His actions, placing people above politics and business interests, irked the GOP minority in California that has an abundance of COVID deniers, mask refusers and anti-vaxxers.

      Yet it is Newsom, the Democratic governor who has done right by his people, who is facing a political recall, not DeSantis, Abbott or Reeves, the southern state Republican governors who continue to put their populations at risk with their irresponsible actions.

      Is Newsom at Risk?

      Any politician facing an election is at risk, Newsom included. More than Newsom, California is at risk of becoming the laughing stock of the world if this recall election results in the removal of Newsom.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Forty-six candidates are vying to replace Governor Newsom. No, that number is not a mistake. There are 46 candidates, many of them Republican, some without a party preference, and a smattering of Democrats and other party candidates who have thrown their hats in the ring. Reading the statements of many of these candidates in the Official Voter Information Guide makes me cringe at the foolish zaniness of the entire recall effort and its ramifications.

      Angelyne, with no stated party preference, makes this argument for her candidature: “Angelyne Billboard Queen. Icon. Experienced politician.” Adam Papagan, also without a stated party preference, is even more cryptic: “Love U.” Jeremiah Marciniak recommends prospective voters to “Search YouTube” and Dan Kapelovitz keeps his statement simple, “Can you dig it?” Nikolas Wildstar says, “Our nation was founded on liberty, but now it’s considered a wild idea. That’s why I’m asking you to Go Wild and elect Wildstar for Governor Now!”

      Newsom is at risk of being recalled for one single reason. The situation requires every voter, whether they are a Democrat or an independent, to show up and vote against the recall. Should they fail to do so, whether it is because they are sick of the political drama that is unfolding, or because they are enjoying a false sense of security that this foolhardy effort is bound to fail without them casting their ballot, Newsom’s position will be on the line.

      Those who are against the recall must understand that more than 1.5 million voters have proved they are motivated to removing Newsom from his position as governor, something that he won convincingly. The people of California mandated Newsom do a job for the next four years, and he has done nothing that merits a recall.

      If the majority of the 7.7 million who voted for him choose to be complacent, choose to not take the threat of this recall seriously, the very fundamentals of the democratic process that entrusted the job of the governorship of California with Newsom will be upended by partisan political hatred. No Californian should stand for it.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Can a socialist live in a $2.7m mansion? | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      OpinionUS politicsCan a socialist live in a $2.7m mansion?Arwa MahdawiHasan Piker, a leftwing commentator with a huge online following, has attracted criticism after buying an expensive new home. But shouldn’t the left be concentrating on other things, such as getting into power? Tue 24 Aug 2021 09.48 EDTLast modified on Tue 24 Aug 2021 13.32 EDTHasan Piker, AKA Hasan the Hun, AKA “woke bae”, has bought a house. If you’re extremely online then you’ll know exactly what this means and already have a strong opinion about it. If you are a normal, well-adjusted, human being then you will have no idea what I’m talking about. So, in brief: Piker is a 30-year-old dude who has gained a massive following through leftwing political commentary on the streaming service Twitch. Spending several hours a day ranting about politics on the internet hasn’t just earned him more than a million followers, it’s also made him a lot of money: Piker has just bought a $2.7m (£1.9m) house with a swimming pool in West Hollywood. Cue screams of “class traitor” and “hypocrite!”Piker’s new pad has drawn a lot of criticism from fans who think he has betrayed his socialist values. It has also drawn predictable ire from the rightwing media, who have used the story to try to prove socialists don’t have any values. There is nothing conservatives love more than an opportunity to write a story along the lines of “FRAUD: self-proclaimed socialist buys something!” They seem to think that you can’t possibly critique capitalism if you own any sort of property. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example has been criticised by rightwing commentators for owning a nice jacket and a Tesla; Bernie Sanders has been slammed for owning three houses; Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter and self-described Marxist, has been dubbed a hypocrite for buying multiple houses.Look, if you’re making a living through socialist politics then you shouldn’t be surprised if people raise an eyebrow when you shell out millions of dollars on property. That said, I don’t really care about Piker’s fancy new house. There is a strain of purity politics on the left that means that nobody seems to be able to do anything correctly. Had Piker bought a more modest house in a cheap neighbourhood, for example, he would probably have been accused of being a gentrifier. Instead of wasting all its time in-fighting, the left really ought to exert its energy building a broader base and trying to actually get into power. Let Piker enjoy his fancy new pool. There are bigger fish to fry.
      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionTwitterTwitchInternetcommentReuse this content More