by Don Pelton

A few years ago, when our grown son and I disagreed on some political issue, I told him, “I love you more than I care about being right on this, and I may well be wrong.” That continues to be my standard yardstick for balancing personal and political values. I apply it to friends I love as well as to my family. I can’t think of a friend or family member who shares my intention to vote this coming November as if I were a Palestinian who has lost several generations of his family in the horrific Gaza genocide. My friends and family are probably all consoled by the fact that I am now an octogenerian and can therefore be more easily dismissed as someone whose intellect is naturally dimming.

So, who can we completely trust? No one, actually. Not even ourselves.

Here are some examples.

* I read an anti Ukraine War essay this morning (“Washington’s Ukraine Obsession Is Going To Get Us All Killed!“) by Ron Paul and agreed with every word of it. But I probably disagree with this libertarian “godfather of the Tea Party” movement on most economic issues.

* Rachel Maddow and the gang at MSNBC — but especially Rachel Maddow — are once again beating on the dead horse of the by-now-thoroughly-debunked Russiagate scandal. The truth is that in 2016 “Russia purchased 80,000 ads; 80% had nothing to do with politics, and 50% weren’t shown until after the election. They represented about .00001% of all Facebook traffic” (from”The Ugly Underbelly of the West’s War on Dissent“).

The most damaging consequence of the Russiagate fraud (bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign) is that it has helped gin up popular anger against Russians, making war with Russia more acceptable to the American public.

Compared to the influence of, say, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which effectively owns the U.S. Congress, the effect of Russia on U.S. elections is laughable. So, don’t trust everything Maddow — or anyone else — says.

* Many of us read Heather Cox Richardson’s daily dispatch, called “Letters from An American” (a title probably deliberately chosen to be reminiscent of a classic work of American Revolutionary era literature, John de Crèvecœur’s “Letters From An American Farmer,” written in 1782). Richardson’s area of expertise is American domestic history, particularly of the Civil War period through modern times. But when she ventures opinions on foreign policy, I’ve noticed that some of her sources are what I would call dubious. On Ukraine, she often cites the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a non-profit think-tank generally considered “hawkish.” One writer describes the ISW this way:

“It has neoconservative roots and is run and staffed by pretty extreme hawks. Over the years it has gotten funding from various corners of the arms industry—General Dynamics, Raytheon, lesser known defense contractors, and big companies, like General Motors, that aren’t known as defense contractors but do get Pentagon contracts.” (from “A case study in American Propaganda“).

I’ve noticed that Heather Cox Richardson speaks approvingly of the “rules-based order,” a meme meant to sound unassailably noble, but in practice refers to current U.S. foreign policy, for good or ill. (See “Some Rules of Global Politics Matter More Than Others“).

For instance, Richardson says …

“Americans recognize that Ukraine’s forces are not simply defending their sovereign territory, they are defending the rules-based international order that protects the United States. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, is trying to destroy that order, replacing it with the idea that bigger countries can conquer smaller countries at will. ”  (from her Letters, February 5, 2024).

It’s not surprising tha she was granted access to interview President Biden. No one who strays far from the administration’s positions on any issue would be granted such privileged access.

*  On foreign policy, I tend to rely more on alternative sources such as The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté, independent journalists Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges, academics such as Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer, and ex-military figures such as Colonel Douglas Macgregor and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. But there are a few issues where I believe each of them has his head up his ass (where I therefore rate them partially “HUA” for “head up ass”).

* Max Blumenthal is a brilliant observer of Israel, but he’s HUA on vaccine mandates, it seems to me (not his primary province). Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs is a geopolitical genius, with personal and professional experience advising Gorbachev and other post-Soviet leaders, and yet I believe he’s HUA on the so-called “lab-leak theory” (a matter outside his area of expertise). Likewise Aaron Maté of the The Grayzone has written definitively on the Russiagate fraud (see his book “Cold War, Hot War: How Russiagate Created Chaos from Washington to Ukraine“) and yet I disagree with his dismissive HUA attitude toward the various (and I think justified) Trump prosecutions. Professor John Mearsheimer, renowned foreign policy purveyor of “offensive realism” gives the best explanation for Russia’s defensive posture with regard to NATO, and makes a compelling case against NATO’s aggressive expansion worldwide, yet I disagree with his belief that China must be “contained.” Colonel Douglas Macgregor seems to have the best, most up-to-date strategic understanding of the Ukraine War, but he loses me when he starts complaining about how our “woke” sensibilities are corrupting our culture.

Neither Persons Nor Parties

Not only can we not trust any one person to be correct on all matters, we can’t trust any one political party to have the correct stance on all issues. My lifelong fidelity to the Democratic Party was always based on its support of the ordinary working person, but that changed with the election of the Clintons and their dependence on the financial class. The Democratic Party has also lately become the haven for the worst warmongers, neocons and enemies of free speech (“More Dems take dim view of right to free speech“).

The devolution of both parties has progressed to the point that many now refer to them collectively as the “Uniparty,” and our system of deteriorating democracy as a fading empire.

In this deteriorating system, the working class, abandoned by the Democrats, has become more susceptible to the populist rhetoric of the MAGA Republicans.

So, How and Where Do We Find The Truth?

I can’t find the exact quote, but I’m sure I heard Chris Hedges once say that it’s necessary to read books, and he’s one person who takes his own advice to heart. I rarely hear him speak without him mentioning one book or another. He frequently cites political theorist Sheldon Wolin, and Wolin’s book, “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.”

That’s bad news. It means that getting to the truth — even just approaching it asymptotically (which may be the best we can ever do) — is hard, time-consuming work. Most of us don’t have the time, or just don’t want to put in the effort required, so we consume info-bits from headlines and quick news stories on TV. This ends up being mostly propaganda from corporate news sources, supporting our fading empire.

Here’s a bit of what I believe to be the truth: We live in a failing empire, where fascistic tendencies are growing under both parties, in a country run by neocon cold warriors and an armaments industry that has made the U.S. the world’s greatest obstacle to peace, because — among other things — war is so profitable.

We are a nation trying to preserve our exclusive hegemonic unipolar dominance — which has always been more delusional than real — in a world that is inevitably becoming multipolar and diverse.

But maybe that’s just me.

After all, I’m just another unreliable source.

RELATED:

Watch “Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : [LIVE from U.N.] – US a Menace to World Peace” on YouTube