Air Date 1/8/2025
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.
Trump's first term was marked by all of the friendships he built with some of the world's worst, most oppressive leaders. His second term is getting an early start as he has begun making threats toward traditional allies and friends, including Canada, Mexico, Greenland, and Panama so far.
For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today includes The Geopolitical Economy Report; The Wall Street Journal Opinion: Potomac Watch -- surprising, I know; DW News; Politics Unpacked; Democracy Now!; and The Muckrake Political Podcast.
Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show there'll be more in four sections: Section A. Panama; Section B. Manifest Destiny; Section C. Elon Musk and Section D. Trump 2.0.
Make US imperialism great again: Trump threatens to colonize Panama, Canada, Greenland, Mexico- Geopolitical Economy Report - Air Date 12-27-24
BEN NORTON - HOST, GEOPOLITICAL ECONOMY REPORT: There's a popular narrative claiming that Donald Trump is [00:01:00] supposedly an isolationist who's against war and intervention. In order to believe this, you have to ignore his extremely hawkish foreign policy during Trump's first term, when he killed the top Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, and tried to overthrow the Iranian government.
He also killed a top Iraqi military commander and occupied Iraq, refusing to withdraw US troops from Iraq. He expanded the war on Yemen, brutally bombing Yemen. He expanded the war in Afghanistan. He boasted of selling offensive weapon systems to Ukraine.
DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me. I didn't. I'm the one that gave Ukraine offensive weapons and tank killers. Obama didn't. You know what he sent? He sent pillows and blankets.
BEN NORTON - HOST, GEOPOLITICAL ECONOMY REPORT: He backed a coup attempt in Venezuela and waged economic war against Venezuela.
DONALD TRUMP: Venezuela. How about we're buying oil from Venezuela? When I [00:02:00] left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over. We would have gotten all that oil. It would have been right next door.
BEN NORTON - HOST, GEOPOLITICAL ECONOMY REPORT: He backed a violent coup in Bolivia that overthrew Bolivia's elected government. He waged a trade war against China and he even boasted of leaving US troops in Syria to take its oil.
DONALD TRUMP: And then they say he left troops in Syria. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil.
BEN NORTON - HOST, GEOPOLITICAL ECONOMY REPORT: So that was Donald Trump during his first term as US president. Well now he's coming back to the White House in January 2025. And what is he pledging to do in his second term? Again, very interventionist, hawkish policies. It's the opposite of isolationism. Donald Trump is threatening multiple countries, including he wants to colonize Panama and take over the Panama canal, in a [00:03:00] blatant violation of the sovereignty of the Central American nation.
Donald Trump also wants to expand the US empire and take over Greenland, which is an autonomous territory. It was a colony of Denmark and it has a large indigenous population. They do not want to be a colony of anyone. They want their own sovereignty.
Trump and his nominees are discussing plans to invade Mexico, the US southern neighbor, another blatant violation of sovereignty. And Trump is even talking about potentially annexing Canada and making it the 51st US state.
Now, Trump supporters claim this is a joke, it's not serious. But he's threatening the northern and southern neighbors of the US. He's threatening China. He's threatening Iran. This is the opposite of isolationism. This is extreme imperialism.
Trump made an extremely bizarre post on Christmas on his website, Truth [00:04:00] Social, in which he threatened Panama, China, Canada, and Greenland. Christmas is supposed to be about peace and love and family. But instead, Trump insisted that the US will take over Greenland. He once again said that Canada should become the 51st state, which, again, is a not so subtle threat to annex Canada. And then he falsely claimed that Chinese soldiers are operating the Panama Canal, which is completely false, but Trump is trying to provide a justification for colonizing the Panama Canal, which he said very clearly he wants to take over. And he's using China as a boogeyman to try to justify that.
And meanwhile, some of the biggest pro-Trump right wing accounts on social media are talking about expanding the US empire, colonizing Mexico, colonizing Canada, colonizing Cuba and Nicaragua. These huge [00:05:00] pro-Trump accounts on Twitter that have millions of followers, largely because they're constantly promoted by Elon Musk, who's going to be a top official in the second Trump administration. They are invoking Manifest Destiny. This is blatant colonialism. Again, this is the opposite of isolationism. They're saying they want the US empire to colonize sovereign countries, and they're portraying this as base. They're saying, oh, if you are opposed to imperialism and colonialism, it's because you're "woke."
This is not isolationism. This is blatant colonialism, and warmongering.
Another example of this was Donald Trump's former undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Ezra Cohen, who is one of the top officials in the Pentagon in Trump's first administration, he quoted Trump's comments threatening to take over the Panama canal, and Ezra Cohen wrote in all caps, quote: MAKE THE MONROE DOCTRINE GREAT AGAIN [00:06:00] end quote. Again, this was one of the top officials in Trump's Pentagon the first time, he's very likely going to come back in Trump's second administration. He's also worked with the CIA and previously with the Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA This is a former top US government official who oversaw the war machine's intelligence apparatus, and he's invoking the 200-year-old colonial Monroe Doctrine, which essentially claims that Latin America is the so-called backyard of the US empire.
These people are blatant neo colonialists. And yet Trump and some of his allies claim that they're right wing populists who are against neoconservatives, but they're showing that they're just as imperialist as neocons. They're threatening many countries with war, invasion, conquest, occupation, and colonization. And they can say it's jokes, but a lot of countries around the world are very scared [00:07:00] because the US empire has invaded dozens of countries just in the past few decades. The US military has intervened in the vast majority of countries on Earth.
So when the president-elect talks about annexing Canada, and invading Mexico, and taking over the Panama Canal, that's not seen as a joke, that's seen as a threat, given the historical precedent, which I'll be talking about today.
Let's start with the Panama canal. This is one of the most important trade choke points on earth. About 5 percent of global maritime trade passes through the Panama canal. And Donald Trump wants the U S to colonize the Panama canal to take it over, given the historical precedent that previously it had been US colonial territory until 1999. So on the 21st of December, Donald Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, he said, quote, "We will demand [00:08:00] that the Panama Canal be returned to us in full and without question. To the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly," end quote. This is a threat to a sovereign country. And in order to justify this threat of colonizing part of Panama, Donald Trump pointed to China. As always, he fear mongers about China. The Panamanian government condemned this threat by Trump and Panama's president, Jose Raul Molino, said, quote, "Every square meter of the Panama canal and its adjacent areas belongs to Panama and will continue belonging to Panama." End quote.
Now what's ironic about this is that Molino, the president of Panama, is from a right wing party and he's been a very pro US politician. He's not in any way an anti-imperialist leftist. But even right wing US allies in Latin America are scared now because the [00:09:00] US president-elect is threatening to colonize and take over their territory.
Panama's president Molino stressed that, quote, "The canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power." End quote. In response to that, Donald Trump, once again threatening Panama saying, quote, "We'll see about that." End quote. And then Trump posted a photo with a US flag over water. And he said, "Welcome to the United States canal."
Again, this is a direct threat to colonize sovereign territory of a foreign country. And yet Elon Musk, the richest oligarch on earth, who helped to fund Donald Trump's presidential campaign and is going to be a top official in the second Trump administration, he tweeted, quote, "2025 is going to be so lit [laughing emoji]" With this, these [00:10:00] images of Donald Trump threatening to colonize Panama. So he thinks this is hilarious. He thinks this is funny that the US is threatening to colonize a foreign country.
I should point out that Elon Musk is a blatant colonialist. He doesn't hide it. In fact, back in 2020, before he bought Twitter, before it became his property, Elon Musk infamously tweeted in response to a critic who condemned Elon Musk for backing the far right coup in Bolivia under the Trump administration in 2019 that overthrew Bolivia's democratically-elected left wing president, Evo Morales. And Bolivia has large lithium reserves. So a person on Twitter criticized Musk and said, quote, "You know what wasn't in the best interest of the people? The US government organizing a coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so you could get the lithium there." End quote. And then Musk responded saying, quote, "We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it." end quote. This is the world's richest oligarch [00:11:00] saying, Yeah, we'll organize a coup wherever we want. We'll overthrow any foreign government.
I mean, these people are colonialists. They don't believe in sovereignty. They don't believe in independence. They believe that the US empire has the supposed right to colonize any country they want and to install puppets and to take over their resources and their territory.
This is not isolationism. This is blatant colonialism.
Donald Trump’s New Manifest Destiny - WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch Part 1 - Air Date 12-26-24
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: I tried to brace myself for anything, but this one really came out of the blue for me, particularly going after Panama.
I mean, the Canadian rhetoric is really just provocative. Obviously, Canadians have no interest in being part of the United States, and Trump is just blowing off steam.
On Panama, though, I think it's more troubling, because Panama is one of our few allies in the region at this point. I mean, so many countries have fallen to the hard left, and here we have an ally that runs a going concern very well, the Panama Canal, and [00:12:00] all of a sudden he's picking a fight with Panama. And it doesn't make much sense. I think he might at some point realize it doesn't make much sense, but he's not going to back down. He's not going to turn around and say, "Oh, I was wrong." So we're going to have to go through some kind of a kabuki dance between Panama and the United States until he can find his way out of this one.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Well, for listeners who are as old as I am, they can probably remember the debates of the 1970s over whether or not the US should cede the Panama Canal in a treaty to Panama. There's a great debate on the American right about it. Ronald Reagan said, "No, don't turn it over." Bill Buckley and some others, William F. Buckley Jr. said, "Well, it makes sense to do it, because there's no reason we should have to control it. It can be run well enough by Panama." And Jimmy Carter managed to negotiate a treaty and it passed the Senate, ratified by the Senate 68 to 32, which is only one vote above the two-thirds majority needed. And pretty much it's been not a huge issue ever [00:13:00] since. Let's listen to Trump talking last weekend about how he sees the Canal now.
DONALD TRUMP: You got to treat us fairly and they haven't treated us fairly. If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question. I'm not going to stand for it. So to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: The Panamanian President, José Raúl Mulino, quickly said, "We have no intention of turning the Canal over," and said Panama would defend his interest. And to which Donald Trump replied on Truth Social, "We'll see about that." That sounds like a threat. Mary, what do you think? First of all, does Trump have a fair complaint about the fees?
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: I think he does not. And I'll start with the fact that all ships and vessels, no matter [00:14:00] the flag they fly, pay the same fees, and those are based on tonnage and type of vessel. They have nothing to do with singling out the Americans to gouge them. The one problem he may be hearing about from shippers is that the drought, which was an El Nino drought, which went from June of 2023 until about the middle of this year, caused the big lake, Gatun Lake, to go down in volume, and that meant there was less water and they could bring fewer ships through the Canal. So they ended up creating something they called the Express Pass, which was an online bidding system for ships that wanted to go faster through the Canal, they could pay more, and other ones who didn't want to pay that would have to wait longer. And obviously, that made a lot of shippers unhappy, but it also wasn't good for the Canal. They lost an estimated $1 billion in revenue during that time. So, they have no incentive to slow down the ships or raise the [00:15:00] prices, because they give up their own interests as well. But that was just a reality of nature. They also have to run the Canal, which means not only keeping it maintained all the time, but they have to also put investments into capital expenditures. And one of the strategies they're thinking about is building new reservoirs to deal with this uncertainty of water supply. And if they do that, it's going to cost them probably more than $2 billion. So again, the Canal Authority is run like a business and it's an autonomous institution, and they have to care about their bottom line. So this idea that they're somehow able to gouge Americans with no regard to the outcomes is just blatantly false.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Trump also suggested in a Truth Social post, I guess, that the US somehow investing billions of dollars in this. Is that true?
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: No, it's not true. The Canal Authority has to basically run out of its revenue, not just regular maintenance, but [00:16:00] also expenditure. So the third set of locks, which started in 2016, was completely done by the Canal Authority, and they issued bonds which were backed by the Panamanian government, but they were Canal Authority bonds, and so they did the whole thing on their own to create those set of three new locks. It is true that the United States widened the Canal before the handover, they put money into widening the Canal.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: That was in 1999, was the handover.
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Right. So it was before that it was widened. But since it's been handed over, the Panama Canal Authority has been the only one responsible for maintaining and investing in the Canal.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: If the fees aren't a problem, if management here has been run more or less like a business, although it does kick any excess profits to the government of Panama, there's some suggestion that Trump is worried about China and its influence there in the Canal. Of course, China has expanding its influence throughout [00:17:00] the Americas, Latin America in particular, and Trump suggested that Chinese soldiers are helping to operate this? It's the first I've heard of that.
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Again, not true. And actually the Panamanian President answered that on either Christmas day, or the day after Christmas, saying that there are no Chinese soldiers in the Canal zone. There are five cargo ports and two of them are run by a subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa, which is a Hong Kong company traded on the Hong Kong stock exchange. The other three ports are run by US, Taiwanese and Singaporean commercial interests. But there are no soldiers in the Canal zone from China.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Is China, what about overall Chinese influence, right? Hutchison Whampoa is a Hong Kong based company. It used to be an old British trading company, and now local, I believe the shareholders are Chinese, Hong Kong Chinese, and Hong Kong does answer now to China. How much should we be worried about that?
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Well, I [00:18:00] think it's something we definitely have to keep an eye on, because as you say, the influence of Beijing over Hong Kong and the so-called private sector in Hong Kong is something to worry about. But when I look at that problem and I think, okay, if that is a threat, what Trump should want to do is bring the Panamanian government closer to him and try to work with them to ensure security in the Canal. Instead, he's alienating a center right government, and Venezuela is sticking up for Panama right now. So I don't even understand the chess game. I mean, if he's trying to outsmart them, he's not doing a very good job.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Well, so that's an important point, which is the bullying here plays into the old El Norte, gringo imperialist, and the left in Latin America will make a lot of hay out of this. But what's the goal here? I mean, does Trump want to renegotiate the treaty? If he does, of course he'd have to [00:19:00] resubmit it to the US Senate. Does he want to lean on Panama to be able to make sure that it gets rid of those two Hutchison Whampoa concessions? And how's he going to do that if Panamanians say, "Well, you can't bully us, we're not going to cooperate," then what's his leverage?
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Well, I'm suspecting that someone complained to him about the price of getting through the Canal, and he took that complaint and he decided to tweet about it, and complain about it to the public. What I suspect will happen here is that he will say that he forced a negotiation, not unlike what he did with Mexico in the North American Free Trade Agreement. In the end, what he renegotiated with Mexico was very, very similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement, but he declared victory and went home. So if he forces Panama to make some concession, who knows what it is, he will say that he won.
Why Elon Musk interferes in politics around the world - DW News - Air Date 1-3-25
DW HOST 3: Musk is supporting the far right [00:20:00] AFD party, even though it seems on par with Trump. Just a very thin look at their policies, that they are against bilateral partnerships with the USA, or even promoting electric vehicles. With that in mind, what do you think it is that Musk wants from this relationship?
JONATHAN KATZ: Yeah, well, one: Mr. Musk is not shy about endorsing or getting into the mix of the political fray. Particularly in US-allied countries like the UK and Germany, we've seen him try to play a role in Brazil and elsewhere globally. And he has reportedly and engaged with autocrats as well, like Mr. Putin and others. So, this is not a surprise that he's engaged. But one thing is certain, he does have the ear of incoming president Trump. And it's somebody that foreign leaders will certainly have to figure out how to deal with. But his interests in far right political [00:21:00] parties in Europe and globally is quite disconcerting. But it's pretty much par for the course from what role he took in the Trump reelection campaign that just passed as well. So I think Germany is getting a little bit of a dose of what the United States just went through, but other countries as well, including partners and allies.
DW HOST 3: Jonathan, you mentioned quite rightly what he got out of the US election campaign. Looking at what he achieved in the US, do you at least understand tactically why he would at least try and find another political ally in Germany, home to a very slowly adapting car industry?
JONATHAN KATZ: Yeah, I think there's the Elon Musk, his own economic interests and what he is seeking with partners globally. And then there's one that's playing this role with President Trump in his right ear or left ear. And I think the two don't really meet together in the middle. And he'll have to make a choice in 17 days when President-elect [00:22:00] Trump is inaugurated, about what role he's going to play. Cause you can only imagine, with President Trump's seeking to end the conflict in Ukraine, trying to address challenges posed by China and other issues globally, that you can't have somebody like Mr. Musk, who's traveling around the world creating problems for partners and allies that you're going to need to solve problems. So I think what you're seeing is that Musk has his own interests, but then there's the interest of the United States, and I think these things are going to come head to head. And so Mr. Trump will have to make a decision what role he wants Musk to play.
DW HOST 3: Jonathan, do you think he can achieve the same amount of clout in Germany or Europe as he enjoys in the U. S.? Is the German system really built to withstand a billionaire who seeks influence?
JONATHAN KATZ: When you look at polling numbers in Germany for the upcoming election in February, you've seen a very steady state in terms of polling. I think it's very unlikely in Germany, specifically, that [00:23:00] Musk will have the outsized influence he may have had in the U. S. election, and that's even debatable as well, in terms of his overall impact. And so I think it's really, Germany is a strong democracy. Citizens in the country have been through multiple elections before. There's strong politicians, political parties. Some may even like to see conflict with somebody like Musk publicly to gain more attention and to show a contrast between other political parties. But when we look at the numbers, I don't think this will have a huge impact on the outcome of the German election. AFD is unlikely to come to power in any which way based on the polling that we're seeing, and I don't think Musk will be able to push that polling number high enough for AFD to take power.
Is Musk Flirting With Fascism? - Politics unpacked - Air Date 1-3-24
ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: Let's talk about a man for whom consensus and cooperation and harmony is at the centre of his entire being. I'm referring, of course, to Elon Musk. He was spraying [00:24:00] more attacks against the government last night. Michael, a former Washington correspondent as well. It's got all sorts of things going on here in terms of Elon Musk's relationship with British politics and the UK's relationship with the US. It's the most, I would almost say, unprecedented thing we've seen. We've had people, obviously, like, Kennedy's father backing the Nazis and so on, you have kind of people with extreme views in America who have big impacts on European politics, but this is crazy.
MICHAEL BINYON: Well, we've never seen something like this before, particularly coming from somebody who thinks he is very well placed and close to Trump—I wonder how long that will last—but also is the world's richest billionaire, the richest man in the world.
ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: I think he's the richest man that's ever lived.
MICHAEL BINYON: It's just mind boggling, more money than most countries have in their national budgets. In fact, more than almost anywhere outside, the Western world or China. But one wonders, why is he doing this? What is his aim? Is he trying to be a sort of [00:25:00] global statesman? Is he just shooting his mouth off to glorify himself? He's actually said things that are going to be deeply embarrassing to the Trump administration, particularly what he said about the AFD, the far right party in Germany, which has caused anger and fury there and doesn't really help anybody.
ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: And the vice president, JD Vance, in fact, was invited to comment and said, I don't comment on foreign elections.
MICHAEL BINYON: Well, he is quite right, and sensible, and one wonders, What's the point of this? He does seem to have it in for Britain in a fairly old way. His father apparently was from Liverpool, so why is he so furious with Britain? I don't know. And particularly, ad hominem attacks on Starmer, accusing him of not pursuing the grooming scandals that went on around Rochdale and Northern England about a decade ago or so. It's just absurd. Why is he trying to bring discredit on the Labour government. What is it? And at the same time praising a convicted criminal, Tommy Robinson, who's in prison, saying that he should be [00:26:00] released, a far right extremist. You begin to wonder, is he flirting with fascism?
ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: Well, Gabby, Michael asked the question, What is Elon Musk up to? There's part of me that thinks this is a man, a very powerful and rich man, with an extremely warped sense of humor. Because we all rise to this. He says some things which are, in my view, utterly unacceptable, particularly the stuff about Tommy Robinson and the AFD. They are unacceptable. But a man that wealthy, who frankly doesn't have to give a fig about pretty much anything, maybe he's just doing it for the giggles, in a kind of perverse and weird way. Is there a strategy here?
GABY HINSLIFF: I think it looks to me like a sort of form of trolling on steroids, really, as if that form had to become its owner, almost. He, Musk acts like, it's like a kind of giant spinning Catherine wheel, that just goes round and round and round, sparks flying off in all directions, setting fire to things, almost at random. [00:27:00] And it's all about engagement, it's all about feeling. Is there something cultish about the way a lot of X users or certainly blue check users, the ones who've signed up to the whole monetizing package, think of Musk, it's almost, there's this kind of cult of reverence towards him and this feeling that I think he clearly enjoys being leader of the gang. There's something about Musk that wants to be, has always been seen as a bit of an oddball, has always been seen as dislikable, doesn't quite enjoy, has all this money but doesn't enjoy the respect for it, I think, or the kind of status that you perhaps might expect for that position of wealth and power from other people in business and kind of wants to be liked by someone and has found this crowd that does latch on to his every word and does go with everything he says.
I think the question for the British government in handling Musk, what do they do about Musk, is how long is this actually [00:28:00] going to last? And, Michael hinted at this. You've got two ginormous egos in a bag when you've got Trump and Musk in the same room, with very different agendas. Musk [has] not always been MAGA, he's not a true believer, he's criticised Trump in the past, you feel like he's got his own agenda, he's in it for commercial reasons, gives him a lot of protection to be allied with the US president, makes regulators in Europe think twice about going after him. So, how long does that partnership... but isn't really a partnership? How long can that last without one or other of them trying to set fire to the other?, is the kind of question. And in that case, to some extent, I think the British government is sitting back waiting to see how that plays out.
ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: I think that's right. Donald Trump has already commented on whether Elon is after his job. And the fact that, in theory, Donald Trump will step down after this presidency, it's very telling that he felt compelled to do it. And I think it gave a kind of insight into what is going on [00:29:00] in Trump's head as much as Elon Musk's head. Clearly, obviously Elon Musk. is going to have a big impact on British politics if he carries on in the way he is. There is this talk of this 80 million pounds to Reform, and there's also potentially the kind of idea that Trump and Musk together normalise what Reform is going on about. Part of me thinks that if he does give the money to Reform, there'll be a kind of Great British backlash to foreign interference. What do you think, Michael?
MICHAEL BINYON: I think I agree entirely. I think it will look very tainted. It will look pretty shabby. And I think Farage would be very wise to keep his distance from that, particularly if Musk starts shouting about all sorts of other things, sounding off his opinions on, well, the far right in general. And equating Reform with some quasi-fascistic kind of ideas that he seems to be spouting. That's not where Reform want to go. They want to pull the mainstream-right over to them. They don't want the far-right. They don't want the nutters as part of [00:30:00] their image.
I also think there's, questions of law. Would they be allowed to accept such a massive donation? How would they declare it? How would it be processed through the normal channels. I actually, I don't think that's going to happen. But, yeah, he is trying to interfere. And one wonders why? It'd be interesting to see whether Lord Mandelson as the new ambassador in Washington, who's got this delicate task of trying to sweet talk Trump and make Labour appear the loyal friends of America that Britain always has been, how he's going to finesse the relations with Farage and also with obviously Musk.
ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: Absolutely. I mean, Gaby, if it wasn't so impactful and important to all our lives in some ways, what is going on is completely fascinating. It's interesting, we do endless opinion polls: Labour's up, Labour's down. We should be doing opinion polls about Elon Musk.
GABY HINSLIFF: Someone has, that's the interesting thing. And actually, his approval [00:31:00] ratings in the UK have fallen over the time that he's been in charge of Musk because people have reacted I think before all this, if you people thought of Elon Musk, they maybe thought about, you might have had some admiration for what he'd done with Tesla, or you might have thought he was doing interesting things with rockets, or you might have thought of him as a kind of tech pioneer and a bit mad, but, eccentric boffin. And now he's someone who's actively promoting fascism across Europe, and that's how he's primarily in people's heads. I think it's interesting this, I would suspect over time there's going to be a backlash, a commercial backlash against Tesla, against Musk, but it's, Do you really want to be seen driving something...?
ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: Well, it is interesting that Tesla sales have declined. It may be because the Chinese are producing more cheap electric vehicles. It's very interesting the texts that are coming into the show. A lot of people saying we're getting it wrong about Musk and Musk represents mainstream opinion. But in terms of opinion polls, Gaby, [00:32:00] I was thinking, there should be an opinion poll now about if Musk gives Reform money, will it make you more or less likely to vote Reform? I'd be fascinated to see what that came out with.
GABY HINSLIFF: I guess it doesn't have a huge propensity on Reform voters because that's not, primarily, what's in their heads when they're choosing whether to revote [sic] Reform or Tory. I think probably this is more of a calculation, as Michael said, for Reform about what kind of strings come attached with that kind of money. And the sums that have been talked about, a hundred million pounds, I don't think any party should be getting a hundred million pounds from one single source. I don't care if that single source is Mother Teresa, not that she obviously has a hundred million pounds, that's not the point. You shouldn't be that dependent on one person because that person then effectively...
ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: [overtalking] Oh yes, well as the Tories found out to a certain extent... yeah, they...
Imperialist Fantasy: Historian Greg Grandin on Trump Threat to Retake Panama Canal, Invade Mexico - Democracy Now! - Air Date 12-27-24
GREG GRANDIN: This is classic Trump. There’s no way the United States is going to fill out greater America. This is red meat for the Trump base. If you go to [00:33:00] Twitter, you can see all of these MAGA maps in which greater America is filled out from Greenland down to Panama. And it’s a fantasy. There is not going to be a kind of return to territorial annexation in any significant way. I mean, the United States is not Israel, right? In Israel, there is a Greater Israel actually being created. In the United States, it exists more in the kind of fantasy life of his rank and file. And I think that some of that is what is going on.
And let me just add, it’s Panama. Panama is one of the largest offshore money-laundering shelters in the world. By some accounts, some $7 trillion exists in these offshore accounts. And if he really wanted to make America great again, he would go after not the Panama Canal or worry about immigration, he would shut down — he would shut down the [00:34:00] ability of these offshore financing to function, and he would tax that money. And then we’d have high-speed trains. We’d have healthcare. We’d have a nation, as he likes to put it.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Well, just as we talked about Greenland and China and the U.S. interest in Greenland, what about the Panama Canal and the possibility of a larger canal being built through Nicaragua, and the role of China versus the U.S.? Is Trump seeing it in this context?
GREG GRANDIN: I think, I mean, obviously, Latin America and its relationship with China is always a geostrategic concern for national security types. And it has been, and has been for quite a while. And in terms of the Panama Canal in particular, there are alternatives on the table. [00:35:00] Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico has talked about creating an interoceanic corridor, a combination of roadways and trains, in that thin kind of waistband area of Mexico, that would compete with the Panama Canal. Nicaragua, of course, is run by a degraded version of the Sandinistas, but they’ve been in talks with China. But this has been going on for decades, so it’s unclear how real they were.
The thing about building alternatives to the Panama Canal is that this happens whenever — it’s been going on for quite a long time, for at least a century, because, of course, the problem with the Panama Canal, it’s not a — it’s a lock canal. It’s not a sea level canal. So it takes a long time to fill up the locks, bring them down, bring the ship across. And that’s [00:36:00] why the tariffs are so high. That’s why the fees are so high. It’s an enormous operation. So there’s been a dream of a sea level canal for over a century. And maybe the will there is to build it either in Mexico or Nicaragua, but, you know, it’s not anything I would hold my breath for, waiting to see happen. We’d probably have high-speed trains in the United States before that happened.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Interestingly, Trump’s pick for the ambassador to Mexico is Ron Johnson, whose military career began in Panama. In the '80s, he was stationed in El Salvador as one of 55 U.S. military advisers as the Salvadoran military and paramilitaries were killing thousands of Salvadorans. He was a specialist in covert operations, became a member of the elite U.S. Special Forces, informally known as the Green Berets, a highly selective unit that also included figures like Trump's pick for national security adviser, [00:37:00] Michael Waltz. He has pushed for the U.S. also invading Mexico, Greg, as we wrap up.
GREG GRANDIN: Yeah, these are bad signs. Ron Johnson just brings us back to Iran-Contra, I mean, right into the heart of it. I mean, he was one of the so-called 55 military advisers on the ground in El Salvador while the United States was helping El Salvador build a death squad state. I mean, he’s got — and then he had a career in the Green Berets and onward to the CIA. He’s been — you know, he’s seen some things. And to name him ambassador to Mexico is, again, sending a strong signal.
Again, Mexico is Mexico. It’s stubborn. It has a strong commitment to sovereignty. On the other hand, it’s poor, and it needs capital, and the United States is the largest trading partner. Claudia Sheinbaum seems to be very astute [00:38:00] in not — you know, where we see obsequiousness on the part of Justin Trudeau, Sheinbaum has come back quite strongly, at least rhetorically, on Trump. But on the other hand, Mexico has cooperated with the United States on all sorts of things having to do with migration, and including helping the United States enforce a hard line on migration. I imagine that’s going to continue, no matter what the rhetoric of Sheinbaum. But Mexico does have a — has a much stronger commitment to the idea of sovereignty because of the history, where, you know, you started talking about territorial annexation. I mean, a third of Mexico was lost to the United States. Texas was lost to the United States. The United States almost took the Yucatán in 1948 along with Texas — 1848, along with Texas. So, that history is there.
And, of course, the people that Trump has put in, Marco Rubio as secretary of state, [00:39:00] Ron Johnson, Mike Waltz, I mean, they might as well move the State Department down to Mar-a-Lago or down to Tampa. I mean, it’s basically a Florida-based operation, which suggests that we’re going to see a lot of interesting rivalries or a lot of interesting conflicts with Latin America, which will not necessarily be — which might reveal some big cleavages, because one of the things that the Trump people want to do is build an alliance with right-wing Latin Americans. And you ain’t gonna do that by threatening to take back the Panama Canal.
The Weekender: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Destruction Part 1 - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-27-24
JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Within these wild fantasies, what we're now watching is the liberal permission structures, including places like CNN, New York Times, The Washington Post, we're now watching them begin to take Trump's rantings and treat them seriously.
And in that moment, what happens is that it activates [00:40:00] fantasies of American exceptionalism, and I want you to think about what America has felt like over the past half century or so, and it's been a depressive period because America has gone into decline as neoliberal globalism has taken over the consensus. And it's been what we're looking at now is a moment of manic imagination.
And this is one of the reasons, and Nick and I have talked about this particularly in our discussions about the movement from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, and the movement from the New Deal consensus to the neoliberal consensus. Just by going out and talking about American exceptionalism and its morning in America, it activates one of the defining frameworks that made [00:41:00] America such an aggressive and destructive nation.
This also includes White supremacy, chauvinistic nationalism, which basically says, of course, that the universe, it favors us. And as a result, we should be able to do whatever it is that we want to do. And it creates this illusion and delusion that is able to be taken advantage of by the wealth class, as they want to gather resources and further their extraction of wealth and consolidation of wealth.
Here, a lot of this has to do with climate change, the fact that we are inching up on an, an existential crisis that none of the shareholders and none of the wealth class actually want to take care of, because, of course, they have [00:42:00] created the situation in which climate change has grown as an existential threat. But also all of their incentives are based on cashing in on those problems.
So, because disaster capitalism means that this is going to take place unless something radical changes and shifts, what we have now is a mad dash to go ahead and gobble up as much stuff as humanly possible. So, of course, Panama Canal is about controlling access to shipping and resources. But when it comes to Canada and Greenland, there are a lot of people on the right who want to go ahead and gobble up some of that colder territory so that when things get warmer, America has more access to some of the more temperate places, as well as access to more resources and more labor.
Mexico is... man, [00:43:00] I got to tell you, I feel a lot of energy growing in terms of an American excursion, a limited war with Mexico, whatever they want to call that, which would include, as I talked about on a prior episode, teaming up with elements within Mexico to fight the drug cartels who are armed with American weapons and money to go ahead and take over a large part of their production and distribution.
I could see this stuff happening. And one of the reasons it could happen is because when Trump says this shit and when they push this absolute madness, like we should be looking at this and saying... this is the type of stuff that if you heard people screaming about it in a grocery store, you would get as far away from them as humanly [00:44:00] possible. But because Donald Trump has won the presidency a second time, and because the American foundation relies on normalizing power, particularly at that level, we now have to grant it permission. And places like CNN talking about this, and anybody listening to the Muckrake podcast knows that this is absolute horseshit. This is crazy horseshit. But a lot of liberal America, which is starting to normalize Donald Trump, and is starting to just move further and further to the right, while also being granted permission by places like CNN, even, MSNBC and the Democratic Party and a lot of these liberal platforms like the New York Times and the Washington Post, and The Atlantic for that matter, they're getting permission from them to go ahead and accept this stuff.[00:45:00]
And so as that happens, it becomes more possible. Reality starts to shift. It becomes more malleable. And for anybody who questions whether or not this is possible, all you have to do is go back to the beginning of the 21st century. And, where George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neoconservatives, who have all come under the umbrella of the Democratic Party now, had widespread support by all these liberal structures. Blame for the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror, it now largely goes to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, even as they've been laundered of any guilt of killing millions of people and raiding America's resources and then destroying the economy. It's just become this [00:46:00] blob, like we don't really talk about like how it happened or how it took place. We don't talk about the fact that the New York Times was one of the leading drivers towards that, or that after September 11th, it wasn't just Fox News that was pushing for this aggression. It was CNN. It was MSNBC. It was the Democratic Party.
So, that moment of mass psychosis, that is the environment that, if we're not careful, we are going to find ourselves in once more. And that environment, it only fuels this stuff. It only makes it more and more possible that it's going to happen, and quite frankly, and I want people to understand this, there is a relief among many people, even among liberals, there is a [00:47:00] relief when a strongman and chauvinistic policies start to take over.
Nobody wants to live in a declining country. Nobody wants to think about how the country that has defined them as, people and define their realities, no one wants to live in this sinking ship. So as a result, it suddenly becomes very exciting for some, the idea that we're going to have a reinvigoration of the American project.
This is one of the reasons why Ronald Reagan was able to win two terms so convincingly and why the Democratic Party was more than happy to become more conservative and more and more dedicated to neoliberalism.
Note from the Editor on the baby-brained ideas of the far right
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with the Geopolitical Economy Report exposing the farce that Trump is an isolationist. Wall Street Journal Opinion discussed Trump's play for the Panama Canal. [00:48:00] DW News looked at Elon Musk attempting to hold sway for the far right in Germany. Politics unpacked discussed Elon Musk flirting with fascism. Democracy Now! spoke with Greg Grandin about Trump's imperialist fantasies. And The Muckrake Political Podcast discussed the nature of media to normalize the radical ideas Trump is floating.
And those were just the top takes. There's a lot more in the deeper dives section, But first a reminder that this show is produced with the support of our members who get access to bonus episodes and enjoy all of our shows without ads to support all of our work and have those bonus episodes delivered seamlessly to the new members only podcast feed that you'll receive. Sign up to support the show at bestoftheleft.com/support. There's a link in the show notes, through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple podcast app. As always, if regular membership isn't in the cards for you, shoot me an email requesting a financial hardship membership, because we don't let a lack of funds stand in the way of hearing more information.
Now we're trying something new and offering you the opportunity to submit your [00:49:00] comments or questions on upcoming topics. Since it takes us a bit of time to do all of the research and get everything together, I can actually give you a heads up about what's coming. And so you can potentially join the conversation as it's happening rather than after the fact. So next up, we are working on the topic of the so-called 'broligarchy' of super wealthy Silicon Valley and influencer bros making waves in the MAGA movement. Also, we have just started talking about the legacy of Jimmy Carter with a focus on where things stand today on some of his top issues, such as the environment, human rights, and housing for the poor. So, get your comments or questions in now for either of those topics for a chance to be included in the show. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected].
As for today's topic, I just have to mention a recurring issue for me. I feel like this happens a lot, but I first noticed it back in about 2009 during the debate over [00:50:00] healthcare, as Obama was pushing for reforms and listening to the counter-arguments against government healthcare. There was a lot of talk about the poor, helpless employees of the private health insurance companies who would be at risk of losing their jobs. The reason being, government administered, single payer insurance would be so much simpler and streamlined that billions of wasted dollars and thousands of unnecessary bullshit jobs could be removed from the system. For the individuals who may need to look for new jobs, I have compassion, but overall it seems like a small price to pay for such a massive benefit that would help everyone. Even those who just lost their jobs would at the very least. have health insurance coverage, something that can't be said now for people who find themselves unemployed. Hearing the conservative arguments about the need to save those wasteful jobs reminded me that I had had the very same thought when I was about [00:51:00] 10 years old. As a totally uninformed child, I'd heard that same piece of propaganda probably as part of a campaign against Hillary Clinton's healthcare reform proposals in the nineties. And I had been swayed by it. So, in 2009, I wondered if this is basically what right-wing beliefs are: ideas that make sense only to uninformed children. Well, this isn't only the second time, as I said, this happens a lot. But learning about Trump's approach to foreign policy has given me another flashback. As a child, I learned a collection of facts that I put together in a very logical way, I thought. I learned that the US had bought land from France in the Louisiana Purchase and from Russia when it bought Alaska. I also learned that the US was quite wealthy compared to other countries And had the general idea that, you know, the occasional civil war not [00:52:00] withstanding, countries more rarely go to war with themselves than with other countries.
So, I took all that information and asked, so why doesn't the US just keep buying more and more land, buy other countries, and make those countries part of the United States for the benefit of peace and stability?, I thought. So, a s a ten-year-old imperialist, I was at least doing it, I think, for humanitarian reasons. And I want to say, that it was pretty rock solid logic, for a child. But again, here we come to find that there are actually some on the far right, the president-elect included apparently, who have approximately the same grasp of the nature of the world, the people in it, and how they might feel about being colonized, as a child. So, it feels like this shouldn't be necessary to say, but it also seems like this needs to serve as a word of warning to [00:53:00] anyone who hears a conservative idea that sounds vaguely plausible. Just remember that their ideas are designed not necessarily by, but definitely for people with about a third grade understanding of any given issue. And they should be treated as such.
SECTION A: PANAMA
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on four topics today. Next up Section A: Panama, followed by Section B: Manifest Destiny, Section C: Elon Musk, and Section D: Trump 2.0.
FLASHBACK: President Jimmy Carter Holds Signing Event For The Panama Canal Treaty - Forbes Breaking News - Air Date 12-29-24
PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Mr. Secretary General and distinguished leaders from Throughout our own country and from throughout this hemisphere. First of all, I want to express my deep thanks to the leaders who come here from 27 nations in our own hemisphere 20 heads of state for this historic occasion. I'm proud to be here [00:54:00] as part of the largest group of heads of state ever assembled in the Hall of the Americas, Mr.
Secretary General. We are here to participate in the signing of treaties which will assure a peaceful and prosperous and secure future for an international waterway of great importance to us all. But the treaties do more than that. They mark the commitment of the United States to the belief that fairness and not force should lie at the heart of our dealings with the nations of the world.
If any agreement between two nations is to last, it must serve the best interests of both nations. The new treaties do that, and by guaranteeing the neutrality of the Panama Canal, the treaties also [00:55:00] serve the best interest of every nation that uses the canal. This agreement thus forms a new partnership to ensure that this vital waterway, so important to all of us, will continue to be well operated, safe, and open to shipping by all nations now and in the future.
Under these accords, Panama will play an increasingly important role in the operation and defense of the canal during the next 23 years. And after that, the United States will still be able to counter any threat to the canal's neutrality and openness for use. The members of the Organization of American States and all the members of the United Nations have a chance to subscribe to the permanent neutrality of the canal.
The Accords also give [00:56:00] Panama an important economic stake in the continued safe and efficient operation of the canal and make Panama a strong and interested party in the future success of the waterway. In the spirit of reciprocity, Suggested by the leaders at the Bogota Summit, the United States and Panama have agreed that any future sea level canal will be built in Panama and with the cooperation of the United States.
In this manner, the best interests of both our nations are linked and preserved into the future. Many of you seated at this table have made known for years through the organization of American states and through your own personal expressions of concern to my predecessors in the White House, your own strong [00:57:00] feelings about the Panama Canal Treaty of 1903.
That treaty, drafted in a world so different from ours today, has become an obstacle to better relations with Latin America. I thank each of you for the support and help that you and your countries have given during the long process of negotiation, which is now drawing to a close. This agreement has been negotiated over a period of 14 years under four presidents of the United States.
I'm proud to see President Ford here with us tonight.
And I'm also glad to see Mrs. Lyndon Johnson here with us tonight.
Many Secretaries of State have been involved in the negotiations. Dean Rusk can't be here. He's endorsed a treaty, but Secretary of State William Rogers is here. We're glad to have [00:58:00] you, sir.
And Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is here.
This has been a bipartisan effort, and it's extremely important for our country to stay unified in our commitment to the fairness, the symbol of equality, the mutual respect The preservation of the security and defense of our own nation and an exhibition of cooperation which sets a symbol that is important to us all before this assembly tonight and before the American people in the future.
This opens a new chapter in our relations with all nations of this hemisphere and it testifies to the maturity and the good Judgment and the decency of our people. This agreement is a symbol [00:59:00] for the world of the mutual respect and cooperation among all our nations. Thank you very much for your help in making this happen.
The Rise and Fall of the Panama Canal - Code Switch - Air Date 4-17-24
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: What was easiest to find out, by far and away, was how the United States felt about the canal and what it was like for Americans to be there. That is very well documented. I mean, there was a newspaper called The Canal Record, which was sort of an indispensable source material for me because it was created specifically to document every new development of the canal construction, right? And it had everything in there from, like, how many cubic yards had been dug in a certain week to all the new clubs that were being formed, the play that the YMCA was putting on in the Canal Zone, like, all of the new things that this commissary in this particular town now stocked [01:00:00] as of this date, the train schedules. Like, it was every part of life in the Canal Zone for white Americans.
So then I was looking for, what was life like for Panamanians? You know, being half Panamanian myself, I wanted to understand what it was like to live through this time. One of the interesting things that I learned fairly early on, because I kind of came into it assuming that Panamanians had worked on the canal themselves.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Yes, that's what I assumed, too.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: And I was disabused of that notion very quickly.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Yeah. That was one of the most surprising things, like, oh, yeah, this is not - there is an army of brown people here...
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yes.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: ...But they are not necessarily Panamanian. That was really surprising.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yeah. I mean, of - the reports vary, but 50,000 people who were on the, like, workforce at the canal, 357 were Panamanian.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Wow.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Right?
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: So you're talking, like, less than a percent, like, a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny...
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yeah.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Yeah.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Like, [01:01:00] minuscule. And I was like, well - so this begged the question for me of, like, why, first of all, right?
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Mm-hmm.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Some of it was a feeling that Panamanians were indolent, lazy. There's a quote from a U.S. congressman who's unidentified, but it's in a report from William Sands, who was a diplomat, and he - the quote is, "these people are of no more use than mosquitoes and buzzards. They ought all to be exterminated all together."
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Whoa.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yeah. I mean, so the feeling toward Panamanians was not one that was very positive.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Right.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Then there's also reports, oh, well, there weren't enough people in Panama; they didn't have actually enough of a population to draw from, which was also true; and they didn't speak English, which was also true in many cases. So if the United States were going to be the ones who were the foremans running the show, they needed people under them who could [01:02:00] understand when they were giving orders in English.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Right.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: OK, so fine. Now I understood Panamanians didn't work on the canal, but I also still just wanted to understand - this is happening in their country. It's the Panama Canal.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Right.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: So what is it like to live through a time when your country is being actually, you know, like, cut in half? And there was not a lot of material on that, and I found myself in a position where I was just basically forced to imagine it, which is - you know, that's what - the job of a novelist. I'm imagining other people's lives all of the time. But, yeah. I mean, I understood that there were sort of some people in Panama who were interested in the canal happening. They thought it would benefit Panama in the end. There were equally just as many people who were very suspicious of the United States coming in and building this canal, who didn't want to attach themselves [01:03:00] to this kind of world power in this dependent way. And so I just wanted to try to represent both of those sides a little bit, which you see through Omar, who is the 17-year-old boy.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: And Francisco.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yeah. And then Francisco, who's the opposite side of that.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Because that's one of the central conflicts in this book - right? - between Francisco and Omar. Francisco is a fisherman. He's a widower, and he absolutely detests the canal. He calls it La Boca because he sees it as this, like, gaping, rapacious mouth that the Americans will use to swallow up Panama. But Omar is his teenage son, and he's drawn to the canal, drawn to the prospect of working there, mostly because - the way you write him is he's bored with his life, And he sees it as an opportunity to do something bigger. And so this giant cleave in the land has run a giant cleave in this family. Did you find a lot of those divides in your research?
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: I mean, I found some. I found enough to be able to feel confident that I could write these characters and that both of them would [01:04:00] speak to a certain kind of perspective from that moment, right? I mean, I think for - in Omar's case, he's bored. And he's also just very lonely.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Yeah.
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: He's grown up in this house kind of at the outskirts of the city. And it's only been he and his father for all of his life. And he just wants to be part of something. And this happens to be the biggest something in the world at that moment. And so, you know, he wants to go and join it, much to the dismay of his father, who calls it the mouth - believes that it's going to swallow Panama. But, yeah, I felt like I needed to represent both sides of that through the Panamanian story.
But the other thread was the West Indians who came. And one day, I stumbled upon this trove. It was this most amazing discovery because in 1963, the Isthmian Canal Commission sponsored a contest where they asked people to submit letters [01:05:00] recollecting their time on the Canal Zone, like, during the construction. And they are the most amazing sort of insightful view into what it was like for these men as they were working on the canal. And it's in their voices. You can hear them coming off the page. You understand something about their whole lives. They talk about the reasons that they had come - the reasons that, in some cases, they stayed, because by 1963, you know, some of them were still in Panama and writing these histories. That was, like, a sort of turning-point moment for me in terms of the research and being able to understand the real, like, human element behind the canal.
GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Was there a specific story that, like, really jumped out to you that you remember?
CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: I mean, there were specific lines, right? Like, it was amazing to me how many of the people didn't complain about the conditions. Like, they stated them very matter-of-factly. And then they would say - they would end their letters with things [01:06:00] like, you know, thank God to the Americans for the Panama Canal. And it's, like, reading that and then knowing, on the other hand, like, the number of deaths that had occurred - right? - and, like, the kind of danger that they were in at all times and that specter of death that was haunting them, that was shadowing them the whole time that they were working on the canal, and yet, to come out of that feeling, like, thank God to the Americans for the Panama Canal was always sort of amazing to me to see.
There was a line that is often quoted, but I found it very poetic and arresting, where one of the men says, the flesh of men flew in the air like birds many days.
But that just - it's like, OK, as a novelist, to read a line like that and to understand what they were up against, you know, and the reality day to day of, like - there was another one who said, one day, you see, like, Johnny in the morning; in the afternoon, he's dead. Like - it's like, that was how quick that things were [01:07:00] happening. Every day on the line, you would be friends with someone, and then they were gone.
And I think coming face to face with that as a novelist and then trying to, like, situate those characters within that context and think about then what it's like to wake up every day, walk down that mountainside and do this work for something that isn't even your country - for the benefit - like, many of them believed they were doing it for the benefit of all humanity. To have that kind of purpose and drive and doing this thing that was very dangerous and could cost you your life pretty easily
Mexico expresses support for Panama following threats from Trump - DW News - Air Date 12-23-24
DW NEWS: There are several issues relating to the canal. There's, of course I suppose, Trump's major worry, which is the Chinese management of two ports at canal entrances. Could you help us understand the significance of this Chinese presence, especially during what's coming, Trump's presidency?
MARIA BOZMOSKI: Panama [01:08:00] has a very close relationship with a number of countries, not just the United States, not just China. Panama was one of the first, was the first, actually, country in Latin America to join the Belt and Road Initiative back in 2018. And China does manage, does operate a Hong Kong subsidiary company, operates two of the ports in the Panama Canal, but I think it's important to remind the audience that the Panama Canal itself is operated by the Panamanian Canal Authority, which is an independent government agency, actually. It has a governing board of directors. The Panama Canal administrator is elected such that he or she overlaps administrations. So there's some sort of continuity despite whoever is president in Panama. And it's operated by [01:09:00] Panamanians, Panamanian engineers. And it has been the case for many years.
We see with the appointments that the incoming Trump administration has made that at the state department, it'll be very Latin America focused. And we're starting to see where that will go in the next four years. The secretary of state nominee, Marco Rubio, has a long career in the Senate, and is very much focused on Latin America.
DW NEWS: Right. Just wondering, as time goes on, what options does Panama have to address this issue? Because, of course, there is a seeming confrontational stance from the U. S., but it also depends very heavily on this for its economy.
MARIA BOZMOSKI: Yeah, like I said, Panama is a very open economy. It's an economy that has relations with a number of countries, not just the United States, not just China. The United States is actually the number one customer that goes through the Panama Canal. But the Panama [01:10:00] economy itself is focused on services. It's an economy that is focused on that industry, the services industry, the tourism industry, the logistics industry.
And I appreciate that the Panama canal is now making headlines around the world because it is such a vital piece of global infrastructure, around 6 percent of global trade goes through the Panama canal. And recently we've seen with the droughts and then the heavy rains that the canal has been having challenges. And so it is time to start to think holistically about how to optimize the operations of the canal, because the traffic that goes through there is so vital to global trade.
HOST, DW NEWS: Well, let's get the view from Panama, from Annette Planells, the publisher and president of La Prensa, joining us today from Panama City.
Welcome. Tell us, first of all, what kind of reaction there's been there [01:11:00] to Trump's sudden interest in the Panama Canal.
ANNETTE PLANELLS: Well, we received that information with concern and surprise, because there isn't anything new in the Panama Canal administration. There's not a thread of truth in what he's saying about a different kind of price for the American ships or that the Chinese are in any way administering the canal.
HOST, DW NEWS: Why do you think this has come up now? Were you surprised to hear the president-elect's comments?
ANNETTE PLANELLS: Yes, we were very surprised and we don't know what's gonna happen because we're a small country and our economy depends on foreign investment. And this kind of declarations can affect our economy in a deep way.
HOST, DW NEWS: So you're saying even the fact that Trump is even suggesting this could be damaging to Panama's economy. We know Panama's president has [01:12:00] roundly rejected Trump's comments. He's called it "an assault on Panama's sovereignty." What are people there making of his comments?
ANNETTE PLANELLS: Yeah, of course. We support the president of Panama 100 percent in this.
The Panama Canal has been part of our history from the day we started being a country in 1904, 1903. And the transition for the administration of the canal from the United States to Panama took at least 15 years where we prepared. And Panama has been very successful managing the canal. And we even increase its size for bigger ships, and it's a big part of our budget.
So his comments about Panama, even though they are not likely to be come through, it's it's very prejudicial to Panama's [01:13:00] economy.
HOST, DW NEWS: Tell us more about that. So you're saying that if Trump continues to make this an issue, regardless on whether he acts on it or not, it would have consequences for Panama's economy?
ANNETTE PLANELLS: Yes, it will. It will. Because Panama's economy is based on service and logistical around the canal and also financial services. We depend on the investment of other countries. So when he says something like that, people are going to be afraid to invest in Panama, and that's gonna cause us a lot of troubles in the economy.
SECTION B: MANIFEST DESTINY
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering Section B: Manifest Destiny.
“We’re Not for Sale”: Greenlandic Member of Danish Parliament Responds to Trump’s Vow to Buy Island - Democracy Now! - Air Date 12-27-24
AAJA CHEMNITZ: I have been representing Greenland in the Danish Parliament for almost 10 years, and I was a member of the Parliament back then, as well. I used to be a member of our own Parliament back home in Greenland before that.
And Greenland is not for sale. Greenland has never been for sale. Greenland will never be for sale. And it’s quite clear. The prime minister of Greenland has said that. And we would like to have [01:14:00] U.S. engagement. We would like to have collaboration with the U.S. But it’s very clear for us that Greenland is a self-governing country. We have our own Parliament, our own government. And anything, any decision that has to do with Greenland is something that is up to the Greenlandic people. And we have a saying in Greenland, which is, “Nothing about us without us.”
And I think it’s very important both for Trump but also for the U.S. to understand that Greenland has the autonomy for a lot of areas that we’re covering back home in Greenland ourselves. So, I’m representing Greenland on the areas that Denmark is covering in Greenland. So there’s a good and a close collaboration. And, of course, it could be better. That’s the way it is. But I think, in many ways, Greenland is really — you know, we’re taking care of our own business in many ways back home in Greenland.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, explain for people what this is all about. I mean, the first time when he was president, he was going to Denmark. [01:15:00] He canceled his trip, calling your prime minister at the time, a woman, a “nasty woman” for saying “no” to the possibility of the U.S. taking Greenland.
AAJA CHEMNITZ: It was because she was saying that it was an absurd idea. I still think it’s a crazy idea. And I think it’s, quite honestly, crazy to talk about expanding your empire. You can look at different places in the world right now where people are trying to expand their empire. I think that’s a crazy thing to even talk about.
So, back then, we said we’re open for business, we’re not for sale. That’s the way it is still for Greenland. And Greenland has a lot of autonomy ourselves. And therefore, the decision on what should happen with the future of Greenland is up to the Greenlandic people. And we have our own government, our own Parliament, and the decision is, therefore, something that should be discussed back home in Greenland. But [01:16:00] Greenland is not for sale, so it’s not going to happen.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I want to ask you about the strategic significance of Greenland for the United States. It’s valuable for what? Vast reserves of zinc, copper, iron ore, uranium. Can you talk about how the U.S. and China have competed for these reserves, including uranium?
AAJA CHEMNITZ: We have almost any kind of rare earth minerals that the U.S., but also EU, is looking for. And in many ways, we need investments when it comes to rare earth, but also raw materials. And we have almost any kind of raw materials in Greenland. So, I think it’s about having a collaboration both with Denmark, with EU, but also with the U.S., in order to make sure that we have a stronger position on the market when it comes to rare earth, because right now it’s more or [01:17:00] less a monopoly from the Chinese side. And therefore, I think it makes sense to collaborate on rare earth, but also on tourism, on education, on business development in total. I think that would make sense to have a bigger U.S. engagement. But to do it in that sense that Trump, the president-elect, has been doing it has been very disrespectful. So, in many ways, this is really something that the people of Greenland don’t like. And I think, in many ways, it just brings us further away from each other. So I really think we need to have a more diplomatic approach when it comes to collaboration with Greenland, which has a lot of autonomy already and is a self-governing country.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Aaja Chemnitz, as a member of the Denmark Parliament, can you talk about the Thule Air Base, which is now a space base? [01:18:00] The air base was owned by the United States. In 2013, Greenland lifted a ban on mining radioactive materials. How does that all connect?
AAJA CHEMNITZ: Pituffik Space Base was renamed from Thule Air Base a couple of years ago, and it was in respect for the Greenlandic people and the Greenlandic language. We’re an Indigenous community, and in many ways, it’s very important for us to focus on community, family, and then me. And in many other Western communities, it’s the other way around, so it’s me, it’s family, and then community. So I think it’s very important to understand that the Greenlandic way of living can be a little bit different from the Western way of living.
And in many ways, we have a modern good society. We have a lot of welfare. We have a lot of business development in Greenland, but we would like to see much more. We have said no to [01:19:00] uranium. This was the last election for the Parliament back home in Greenland. And it was very clear from the voters that we said no to uranium, because it’s an open-pit mine in the backyard of a city where there’s quite a lot of people living there, in South Greenland. But we’re pro-mining. We’re pro-business. We would like to see much more development going on in Greenland, and we would like to see U.S. and EU engagement to a larger extent than what we’re seeing right now.
AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And finally, we just have 30 seconds, but you’re chair of Arctic parliamentarians. If you can talk about how climate change has impacted Greenland? I mean, earlier this year, a study found Greenland’s ice cap is losing an average of 30 million tons of ice every hour due to the effects of the climate crisis. You have a president-elect now, Trump, who often, at the [01:20:00] end of many sentences, will say, “Drill, baby, drill.”
AAJA CHEMNITZ: You know, the climate change is affecting the temperature and the climate in Greenland four times as much as the rest of the world. And so it is in the Arctic, as well. So this is really affecting our everyday life. It’s affecting our hunters, our fishers, which are living off of this. And I think, in many ways, it’s really trying to understand climate change is not something that we have a discussion about is it really real. We know it’s real. We can see it’s real.
And in many ways, I think it’s important to do much more when it comes to the climate. So Greenland has signed up for the Paris Agreement, because we would like to do much more when it comes to a green transition. So, we’re investing in power, hydropower, in Greenland, to name just one example. So, it’s very important for us to have a much more green transition in order to make sure that we are not [01:21:00] polluting more than we should do.
Donald Trump’s New Manifest Destiny - WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch Part 2 - Air Date 12-26-24
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: You mentioned the teasing of or the bluster against Canada, calling Justin Trudeau a governor of the 51st state. Obviously meant to be cutting against Justin Trudeau, who the President doesn't much like and may be on his way out as Prime Minister of Canada. But there's the serious side of this, which is the threat the President made for 25% tariffs on all Canadian imports if they don't do enough to control the border on migrants coming over the border into America, and that threat seems to be roiling Canadian politics. Chrystia Freeland, the Finance Minister, resigned not too long ago from Trudeau's government. Trudeau's government is in danger of toppling, and let's listen to the Ontario Premier, Doug Ford, talk about Canadian exports to the United States.
Doug Ford: I want to sell more electricity, more power to our US friends, and closest allies in the world, but that's a tool that we have in our toolbox. [01:22:00] We power over 1.5 million homes in Michigan, and companies in Michigan and New York state, and Wisconsin. That's the last thing I want to do. I want to sell more energy to the US. I want to sell more critical minerals to the US. Again, we are the closest trading partner, closest allies. We do $1.3 trillion of two-way trade. That's more than Japan, China, UK, and France combined. I just feel we aren't the enemy.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Well, a little implication there, Mary, that if Trump would impose 25% tariffs, Canada has a couple of levers too.
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Yeah, it's going to get mighty cold in upstate New York if Quebec Hydro cuts off the electricity supply. I think what Trump doesn't seem to really think about before he opens his mouth is this concept of reciprocity. And lots of our trading partners have used it over the years to reverse special interests, like remember the [01:23:00] steel tariffs that Bush put on, and American agriculture felt the response from Mexico very sharply, and those tariffs were removed pretty quickly. So if he wants to start a trade war, I guess what Premier Ford is saying is that Canada is ready.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Yeah, I didn't know that Ontario exported that much electric power to Wisconsin, Michigan on the whole.
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Quebec Hydro also.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: That's the whole northern tier. New York State's interesting. He brought that up, because with New York State government not allowing the development of fracking and blocking pipelines to deliver natural gas from the Marcellus Shale to New York State and New England, you could end up with a real shortfall there. And it's not inconceivable, it could be blackouts.
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: It's not the only response that either Canada or Mexico will have. Also, there'll be lots of other opportunity for reciprocity and could get ugly.
PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Well, Donald Trump is unpredictable and he [01:24:00] often, it's fair to say, pops off to try to get attention, try to drive an agenda, and it's sometimes very difficult to figure out what his real goal is. And in this case, I'd say the Greenland thing makes a certain amount of sense if he could be persuasive to the Greenland people. But the way he's going about Panama strikes me as counterproductive and something that could create a fair bit of trouble if he doesn't do it in the right way.
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Well, he has to find a way to climb down from this. I mean, he's made it such a big issue over the Christmas holiday that everybody's watching, and as it becomes more and more clear that a lot of what he's saying isn't true, he probably will have to back off. I'm not sure how.
WTF?! Trump Threatens NEW WAR...with MEXICO?! - MeidasTouch - Air Date 11-28-24
BRETT MEISELAS - HOST, MEIDASTOUCH: This is the new reporting out of Rolling Stone headline. Team Trump debates, quote, how much should we invade Mexico? In Trump's government in waiting, the only question is how massive the U. S. assault on Mexican drug cartels should be. I want to emphasize here, that's not if we should invade Mexico, which [01:25:00] would be crazy enough, but, quote, how much should we invade?
Mexico. I'm going to get into this new reporting in just a minute, but first I want to remind you that this is not the first time Trump has suggested this. Here's a clip from 2023 of Republican James Comer saying that we should have our military on the border and troops in Mexico. He also said that Trump.
Ordered the military to bomb meth labs in Mexico, but they refused to follow orders. And he said that that was a mistake. Watch this.
REP. JAMES COMER: I believe we should have a military presence at the very least on the southern border, if not across the border. One of the things we learned post Trump presidency is that he had ordered a bombing of a couple of, uh, Fentanyl labs.
Uh, uh, crystal meth labs in Mexico just across the border. And for whatever reason, the military didn't do it. I think that was a mistake.
BRETT MEISELAS - HOST, MEIDASTOUCH: In 2023 Trump ally, Republican Lindsey Graham said he couldn't think of a better use of our military than to bomb Mexico. Watch [01:26:00] this.
SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM: They're at war with you. You need to be at war with them.
I can't think of a better use of our military than to blow up labs. In Mexico, killing young Americans.
BRETT MEISELAS - HOST, MEIDASTOUCH: And if you remember back in 2022, there was a whole lot of reporting out there saying that Trump frequently asked about bombing Mexico while he was president. There was this piece about reporter Maggie Haberman's book that said, quote, Trump weighed bombing drug labs in Mexico after he mistook advisor
new book shows. Then there was Trump's former secretary of defense, Mark Esper, who came out with a book called a sacred oath. And in that book, he also mentioned that Trump spoke about attacking Mexico. Per Esper, Trump wanted to bomb Mexico and then lie about it. Esper wrote, quote, On at least two occasions in the summer of 2020, once in the Oval Office and a second time in his private room just off the Oval, the President approached me about a sensitive issue.
Slightly [01:27:00] hunched over with his hands motioning in front of him, like a quarterback gesturing for a long snap, he asked me if the military could, quote, shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs and take out the cartels. Standing close to me. Yes, he spoke. The president complained that the Mexican government isn't doing enough, getting irritated as he spoke and adding quote, they don't have control of their own country.
If we could just knock them the drug labs out, he said, this would do the trick. What do you think? He said. He asked. These conversations were quite troubling, to say the least. On one hand, I shared his concern about illicit drugs being trafficked into our country and respected his passion for wanting to stop this dangerous trade.
But asking the U. S. military to shoot missiles into a sovereign country, and worse yet, our friend and neighbor, definitely was not the way to go about it. Working hard to conceal my shock at this idea. I said, Mr. President, we could do that. And as much as I want to stop these drugs to shooting missiles into Mexico would be illegal.
It would [01:28:00] also be an act of war. I recommended that we look for more ways to help the Mexican government deal with the problem. Problem, such as increasing the training, intelligence and equipment that we are providing them. We should also take another look at ideas that were tabled in the past. But to simply launch air or missile strikes into Mexico would not only violate International Law.
It would also destroy our relationship with Mexico and damage our global standing I said. Trump took these objections piercing his lips as he. He listened. He then suggested we could just shoot some Patriot missiles And take out the labs quietly, adding preposterously that quote, no one would know it was us.
He would simply deny that we launched them. I had seen Trump spin his own reality before, so I had no doubt he was confident in his ability to persuade people. We had not launched the attacks. However, we did not live in a world where the United States could strike another country and no one would believe the missiles were not ours.
I also couldn't imagine the president would resist. [01:29:00] Taking credit for the attack. Anyway, it was nonsense, plain and simple. If I hadn't seen the look on the president's face, I would have thought it was all a joke. He wanted to get this planned and done by labor day around. Then he said, just a few months away, I was speechless.
Trump thought this was the only way we could really stop this terrible trade. I took a long pause and then said again, quote, this would be an act of war, Mr. President. And there would be no way. To keep it quiet, Esper then went on Fox and Fox host Brian Kilmeade, of course, tried to justify these comments by Trump.
And Esper again reiterated that what Trump was suggesting was illegal and an act of war. Watch this.
MARC ESPER: With regard to shooting missiles into Mexico, yes, I thought that was an act of war. It was illegal. It should not happen. And those things should be discussed. And we did have a meeting, a National Security Council meeting, I describe it in a book.
Where we sat around the situation room and discussed how to address the issue with cartels.
BRETT MEISELAS - HOST, MEIDASTOUCH: Within Donald Trump's government and waiting, there is a fresh debate over whether and how thoroughly the president elect should follow [01:30:00] through on his campaign promise to attack or even invade Mexico as part of the war he's pledged to wage against the powerful drug cartels.
Quote, how much should we invade Mexico, says a senior Trump transition member. That is the question. It is a question that would have seemed batty for the GOP elite to consider before, even during Trump's first term, but in the four years since, many within the mainstream Republican centers of power have come around to support Trump's idea to bomb or attack Mexico.
Trump's cabinet picks, including his choices for secretary of defense and secretary of state have publicly supported the idea of potentially unleashing the U. S. military in Mexico. So has the man Trump has tapped to be his national security advisor. So has the man Trump selected as his borders are.
Thanks so much. To lead his immigration crackdowns. So have various Trump allies in Congress and in the media. Trump who has routinely and falsely promoted himself as the candidate who would stop endless wars now wants to lead a new conflict just south of [01:31:00] our nation's border. But at this moment it is in the words of one Trump advisor, quote, unclear how far he'll go on this one.
The source adds, quote, if things don't change, the president still believes it's necessary to take some kind of military action against these killers. Another source close to Trump describes to Rolling Stone what they call a quote, soft invasion of Mexico in which American special forces, not a large theater deployment, would be sent covertly to assassinate cartel leaders.
Indeed, this is a preliminary plan that Trump himself warmed to in private conversations. This For this story Rolling Stone spoke to six Republicans who have each talked to the twice impeached former and now future president about this topic. Some of these sources have briefed trump on these policy ideas in recent weeks.
These proposals of varying degrees of violence severity Include drone strikes or airstrikes on cartel infrastructure or drug labs, sending in military trainers and advisors to Mexico, deploying kill [01:32:00] teams on Mexican soil, waging cyber warfare against drug lords and their networks, and having American special forces conduct a series of raids and abductions.
of cartel figures. In some of these private conversations, including during this presidential transition period, Trump has told confidants and some GOP lawmakers that he plans to tell the Mexican government that they need to stem the flow of fentanyl to America somehow in a span of several months or else he will send in the U. S. military. As Rolling Stone has reported since at least last year, Trump has solicited specific battle plans and different military options for attacking Mexico.
SECTION C: MUSK
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Up next, Section C: Elon Musk.
Musk continues to attack Starmer over handling of historic child abuse - Channel 4 News - Air Date 1-3-25
HOST, CHANNEL 4 NEWS: Now, for the second day in a row, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, has been criticising the Prime Minister on his social media platform, X. The row has escalated since yesterday, when it was revealed that Home Office Minister Jess Phillips had rejected calls for a government led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in Oldham, saying [01:33:00] instead it would be better for the UK.
For local council to commission it themselves, as Rotherham and indeed Telford had done previously. Now Musk has taken aim at Zakir Starmer's time as head of the Crown Prosecution Service. Kemi Nzerem joins me now. Kemi, what's, what's afoot? Alex, as you say, Donald
KEME NZEREM: Trump's current right hand man has been sending a barrage of increasingly incendiary tweets, criticising.
Sakhir Starmer in connection with the prosecution of, uh, child rape gangs. Uh, today, uh, the tweets intensified, a particularly inflammatory one using very strong language, I must warn you, uh, accused, uh, Sakhir of being, and I quote here, complicit in the rape of Britain. Now, all of this obviously presents number 10 with a bit of a, a conundrum, to respond or not to respond.
So far, they have said. Nothing, but the health secretary this morning, before Mr. Musk really got going, um, had this to say [01:34:00] about actually working with Mr. Musk.
WES STREETING MP: Some of the criticisms that Elon Musk has made, I think are, um, are misjudged and certainly misinformed, but we're willing to work with Elon Musk, who I think has got a big role to play with his social media platform to help us and other countries to tackle this serious issue.
So if he wants to work with us and roll his sleeves up, we'd welcome that.
HOST, CHANNEL 4 NEWS: Because it's not quite clear whether Elon Musk's assault on Exxon are helpful or unhelpful to Labour. Actually, you can make a case either way, but of course it's not just the Labour Party affected, is it? There is another party in all this.
KEME NZEREM: It's not just the Labour Party. Recall that Mr. Musk recently met with Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, reportedly offered to bankroll Reform too. Well, he's also been tweeting about, rather controversially, I must say, about the jailed, uh, Far right agitator Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who you and viewers may know better as Tommy Robinson.
Well, this evening, Reform began a series of [01:35:00] events, conferences, mini conferences, if you like, ahead of the local elections. And Mr. Farage was asked, directly, whether he agreed with what Mr. Musk has been tweeting.
NIGEL FARAGE: He has a whole range of opinions. Some of which I agree with very strongly, and others of which I'm more reticent about.
Oh, having him as a supporter is very helpful to our cause. I mean, goodness me. I mean, he's an absolute hero figure, particularly young people in this country. So yes, he's very helpful indeed. Now look, everyone says, well, what about his comments on Tommy Robinson? My position is perfectly clear on that. I never wanted Tommy Robinson to join UKIP.
I don't want him to join Reform UK, and he won't be.
KEME NZEREM: So there remains an unanswered question here. Consider the special relationship. Well, Donald Trump will be president of the USA again in less than a fortnight. To what extent does it really matter to UK diplomacy, to UK politics, what Elon Musk thinks?
HOST, CHANNEL 4 NEWS: One of many unanswered [01:36:00] questions, I suspect. Kemi, thanks very much indeed. Now, when I spoke earlier to Sir David, I asked him what he made of Elon Musk's comments. very much.
SIR ED DAVEY MP: I think, uh, he's wrong. Uh, he doesn't really understand what's going on in, in our country. Um, his comments, for example, on these gangs, shows he doesn't even understand the facts.
So, uh, I, I hope we won't give him, uh, any more attention because he, he doesn't understand our country. Uh, and, uh, I think we as politicians and, and, and the media here. should have the debate focused on people who do understand what's going on.
Elon Musk drives Trump towards 'war' with Europe - Time's Radio - Air Date 1-3-25
HOST, TIMES RADIO: The U. S., uh, President elect, I should say, has announced that Britain is making a very big mistake, a very big mistake with its windfall tax on North Sea oil producers. Donald Trump, who has pledged to increase U. S. oil and gas production, has called on Britain to open up the North Sea, open up the North Sea and get rid of windmills, which is a very Trumpian thing to say, I guess.
Uh, but what has sparked Trump's outrage at the UK government. We're going to talk, of course, [01:37:00] to Theo now, uh, about this. Why is, is this strategic, or is this just Trump sort of sitting on the toilet saying the first thing that comes into his head?
THEO USHERWOOD: It's part of, I guess, a, an America First strategy, and it relates to a US based firm, uh, which has the rights to, um, or has the rights and is to explore for, uh, and drill for oil and gas in the North Sea.
Um, and of course there has been, um, um, The windfall tax was put up, um, by Rachel Reeves in the budget on oil and gas profits in the North Sea to the tune of, uh, so we now have a headline rate of, uh, 78, uh, 78 million pounds. So in terms of, Where we find ourselves, it's uh, only January the 3rd, but the government has got itself into its second transatlantic, uh, round.
This time it's with the man himself, Donald Trump, who is venting his anger, as I said, uh, at the U. S. oil, as the U. S. oil companies pulled its operations, uh, from the North Sea amidst surging taxes on oil and gas. Now, [01:38:00] he was commenting, Mr. Trump was commenting on an article that the U. S. oil giant, Apache, uh, was quitting the North Sea because of, Uh, the windfall tax on his profits.
Mr. Trump then wrote on, uh, Truth Social. This is not on X. He wrote, uh, the U. S. is making a very big mistake. Open up the North Sea. Get rid of, uh, the windmills. Uh, of course, this is a man who boiled down his energy policy during the presidential election to the simple maxim, uh, drill, baby, uh, drill. And, uh, he campaigned on a promise to increase oil and gas production, uh, during his second term.
Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband, of course, since taking office, have taken the UK in the opposite direction since the election. The Labour government is committed, remains committed, to banning new oil and gas exploration licences in the North Sea. At the same time, as I said, Rachel Weaves, the Chancellor, increased the windfall tax on rising energy profits introduced by Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, incidentally.
Uh, Jeff, following, uh, Russia's invasion of, uh, Ukraine, [01:39:00] uh, it's Octo in October's budget, uh, the, uh, the windfall tax jump from 35 percent to 38%, increasing the headline, uh, rate of tax on North Sea Line and gas to 78%, so I was just correcting myself, um, from earlier, move, uh, which has been extended to, uh, 2030, and it's prompt and it's that rise which has prompted Apache, based in Texas, To announce plans that it plans to end all production in the North Sea by December 2029 because of what it calls, and I'm quoting here, the onerous financial impact of the energy profits levy.
The broader picture is not much better either because Offshore Energies UK has previously warned that the windfall tax could result in the loss to the UK economy of around 13 2029, putting 39, 000, 30, 000. 35, 000 jobs at risk.
HOST, TIMES RADIO: So I guess there might be some sympathy for the idea that these windfall taxes are anti competitive.
You could see why strategically Trump might choose to manoeuvre [01:40:00] around this issue. But when you look at saying something like get rid of windmills, that's just nakedly, that feels potentially nakedly provocative. Yes, and,
THEO USHERWOOD: and, and, you know, it comes off the back of what, uh, Elon Musk, who is, of course, leading Trump's, uh, Department for Government, uh, Efficiency, uh, has been tweeting over the last, uh, couple of days.
As I said, this is the second row, uh, Jeff, between the incoming Trump administration and the UK, uh, government after Elon Musk, uh, hit out at the decision by the Home Office Minister Jess Phillips, uh, not to grant permission for a public inquiry into Trump. Into the grooming scandal in Olden. The question really is, where does it go from here?
Is this a pattern now that we're gonna see throughout, uh, 2020, uh, five? And I just point you, um, if I can just to Patrick McGuire's common co column on page 19. The Times, of course, you can, uh, read it with a subscription, uh, on the. Times app, which offers some clues as to how Downing Street is thinking about, um, this, uh, particular, uh, problem.
Now they can either engage, as Patrick writes, with, uh, [01:41:00] Elon Musk, uh, the bill the billionaire, uh, tech op entrepreneur, or Elon Musk, the internet troll. I think they want to do, uh, both. Uh, the former, and that's what, you know, Patrick's writing, uh, about, because that's what interests Rachel Reeves and, uh, Wes Streeting, who both have a, hold a great deal of store about when it comes to new technologies, and particularly, uh, AI, uh, they've got Peter Mandelson, the incoming, uh, UK ambassador to Washington, uh, who's looking to build bridges potentially, but not formally, of course, using the services of Nigel Farage.
Or indeed, possibly he could turn, uh, to Tony Blair, but that's not going to happen. Do
HOST, TIMES RADIO: you, do you think when you talk about building bridges that there might be some regret in the Ostama administration of not inviting him to that investment seminar?
THEO USHERWOOD: Yes, I think Because it does
HOST, TIMES RADIO: seem to have accelerated how Elon Musk feels about the UK.
THEO USHERWOOD: I think, I think there's also some, you know, If you look back, um, when it comes to, when it comes to not just Elon Musk, but Donald Trump, you know, they sent over advisers to campaign with the dem sent over activists to campaign voluntarily, [01:42:00] albeit with the Democrats during the election campaign. That was seen as being an unwise move.
Yes, it had been done before, but we're in a new world order now, aren't we? And I think also, there are comments which, You know, previously made by the likes of David Lammy, uh, Sadiq Khan, were being very critical of Donald Trump, and they, they hadn't made, they hadn't had the forethought to think that being in opposition, and then there's a jump between being in opposition and then being in government, and there's also a jump, of course, um, where you come from Donald Trump going from being the outgoing president, uh, left office in 2020 under a cloud, and then he's come back.
And I don't think anybody within Labour had anticipated that that was going to happen, and now they find themselves having to deal with him.
HOST, TIMES RADIO: But it feels like at the moment the policy from Labour is to say very little in direct response. response to some of these more inflammatory statements. How long can that go on for?
Is there a point where it's politically wise for them to get on the front foot in reaction to some of these? Because let's be honest, some of the things, Elon Musk has a lot of fans, but some of the [01:43:00] things he's been tweeting are downright inaccurate.
THEO USHERWOOD: Yes, and there's also frustration, I think, on the right, and there's a report out this afternoon saying there's some quite senior figures on the leading, uh, On the right of British politics who are saying that Elon Musk, you know, trying to get to the team Trump to advise Elon Musk not to tweet support for Tommy Robinson, that there's a recognition that that is not helpful, that Tommy Robinson is beyond the pale, and that actually they need to keep, you know, they respect the support of Elon Musk.
Of course, Elon Musk has been talking to Reform UK about large donations and support by using his platform X. But actually, by Tweeting support, you know, tweeting support for Tommy Robinson, who is in prison having breached a court order and serving an 18 month jail term. That is not something that is particularly helpful to the cause of the right.
HOST, TIMES RADIO: I mean, for a government that already, you know, generally feel on the back foot, are going into 2025 quite embattled, it feels like one of those things that might just take up a hell of a lot of budget. bandwidth, uh, this year and it'd be quite exhausting. It feels like at some point will the Starmer [01:44:00] team have to come up with a more active strategy.
THEO USHERWOOD: I think, I think when you, when you look at just how inflammatory and you mentioned, Jeff, just how inflammatory some of those tweets are from Elon Musk. They are, when you read them, they can be read no other way that they're looking to destabilise the British government. And we're, we're not alone in this, he's gone after Olaf Schultz's uh, Twitter feed.
The Chancellor of Germany has gone after his left leaning government, he's taken aim at other European leaders as well. And there is going to, you know, there is a hope, and Patrick writes about this towards the end of his column, there has to be a hope that at some point, you know, Donald Trump has to make a strategic decision about whether his government is going to be right or wrong.
for Europe, that Europe is going to be an ally, uh, European nations are going to be allies of the United States, or in effect, is Elon Musk going to be allowed to continue, uh, his efforts to destabilize those governments and find the U. S. in effect, by dint of the fact that Elon Musk is within the, the, the tent, the Donald Trump [01:45:00] tent, is in effect declaring, you know, in a war with, with Europe, to put it, to put it mildly, because of the way that he's going after the, the, the Stalmer administration.
SECTION D: TRUMP 2.0
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally, Section D: Trump 2.0.
A Geopolitical Check-Up - Open Source with Christopher Lydon - Air Date 12-26-24
CHAS FREEMAN: It is now almost 80 years after the end of World War II. It is 80 years after the end of World War II in Europe. And yet the United States still garrisons it and takes responsibility for its defense. We treat NATO as our enemy. sphere of influence in Europe, uh, which is precisely why the Russians objected to it appearing in Ukraine.
Everywhere that NATO expands, American troops and weapons follow. Uh, so basically we were asking the Russians to accept the equivalent of a Chinese military presence in Mexico or Canada. Uh, which obviously we would not accept. I think Mr. Trump is right that the relationship with Europe needs a fundamental readjustment.
Europeans must take more [01:46:00] responsibility for European defense. They cannot continue to have a free ride and to avoid decisions by depending on the United States. And he has broken a cycle which is important, and that is, we have had a habit of saying to the Europeans, you must do more in defense, but then adding.
But if you don't, we'll do it for you, which deprives them of any incentive to get their act together. Uh, in effect, there is a danger that the United States by adopting a more America first posture is not increasing its influence in the world, not leading, not making America great again, but diminishing American influence in isolating us from the fastest growing economies
and fastest, most effective incubators of technology in the world. And here, uh, the policy toward China is a case in [01:47:00] point. China now has something over one fourth of the world's STEM workers, scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians. It is innovating in a remarkable way, not just in the military arena, although that is notable, but But in terms of many, many other aspects.
So, Uh, we are not effectively responding to a world in which Anglo American or trans Atlantic hegemony is being displaced by the rise of other economies and peoples and the resurgence of those who had been battered down, like the Russians. So, We've lost political influence. Militarily, we remain strong, but the balance of power militarily has shifted toward China.
Their own modernization. Their own military modernization has in many ways outpaced ours. Uh, they have rail guns on their ships. We tried to develop that [01:48:00] technology and could not do so. Their air to air missiles outrange ours. Their air force is a match for ours now in the region. And maybe beyond that, uh, they have developed radars that can penetrate our stealth technology, or so they claim.
And they are modernizing their nuclear forces and expanding them in response to our expansion and modernization of our nuclear forces. I just heard that the outgoing American ambassador to Beijing, uh, Nick Burns, who's a very, very fine and accomplished diplomat, in his farewell address. assessment of his own activities, claimed that U. S. China relations had been stabilized. But ironically, as he said that, the Chinese were running the largest exercise against Taiwan and the American forces coming to its aid that they ever have done. All three regional commands in China on the coast participated in this. Uh, there were [01:49:00] hundreds of vessels and aircraft in the air and they were deployed not just to intimidate.
or invade Taiwan, but they were deployed beyond Taiwan to prevent anyone coming to Taiwan's aid. So how this can count as stabilization is quite beyond me. And I think Mr. Trump faces a real problem. He may be dealing with it creatively. He has invited Xi Jinping, the president and the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party to attend his inauguration.
This is unprecedented. Have we heard back yet? I don't think we will. I think this is a symbolic gesture by Mr. Trump, and it has two positive elements. One, he's signaling to the Chinese that even if he's about to mug them with tariffs, he wants to keep the possibility of a deal open. That is positive. And second, he is in tune with his own philosophy, arguing that problems with China can only be solved at the top, uh, that [01:50:00] his entourage, his Secretary of State designate, uh, Marco Rubio, uh, you know, can take care of other problems, but that he himself will engage, uh, with the Chinese.
So this is a gesture, a symbolic gesture. I don't think, however That he's correct, that the Chinese can wheel and deal at the Xi Jinping level. Xi Jinping is primus inter pares, he is the core of the Chinese leadership, but that leadership is collective. China has politics too.
CHRISTOPHER LYDON - HOST, OPEN SOURCE: It's my cue to reframe the conversation around your own rather amazing history with China.
You made your bones as a diplomat as a very young man. U. S. Foreign Service Officer, still in your twenties. Interpreting Richard Nixon in this way. And Mao Zedong to each other in those breakthrough talks in 1972, that week in Beijing that changed the whole world. But there [01:51:00] was this puzzle that was not solved in 1972, the matter of what's to do with the other China, which claims sovereignty of the whole place.
Nationalists who repaired to the island of Taiwan and have thrived incredibly ever since. But it's now Donald Trump's puzzle, his riddle, his answer. To wrestle with, and I want to know how you'd advise him. I'm also trying to picture Donald Trump as a, as a reversioning of Richard Nixon. It was not a popular move Richard Nixon made at the time.
He was a gambler. It was a long shot in a certain way. And I wonder if Donald Trump could ever conceive of himself as being in something of a similar spot. Time for a very bold, improbable move.
CHAS FREEMAN: Well, Mr. Trump is clearly capable of that, as he demonstrated in his handshake and embrace of Kim Jong un, the North Korean leader [01:52:00] in the DMZ at Panmunjom, and his unsuccessful efforts to produce a rapprochement between Pyongyang and Washington.
So he shares with Richard Nixon an indifference to protocol. Uh, and a willingness to break precedent in the broad interest, but he's a very different individual. Uh, Richard Nixon was also a rather strange personality, but he was a successful politician for many years and he grew into a statesman. He was intimately familiar with international affairs.
Uh, he had traveled the world, he had debated our adversaries. He was a gifted advocate in the courtroom. And, um, very different personality. He also had the benefit of, uh, of a compelling strategic incentive to reach out to China, namely his realization that Soviet threats to attack and [01:53:00] subdue China would remove a key piece from the geopolitical chessboard and had to be prevented.
He was determined to place China once again under American protection, as we did in World War II, when we had very little expectation that Chiang Kai shek's government would make any gains against the Japanese who had invaded China. But, They could serve the purpose of tying down an enormous number of Japanese troops and diverting Japanese attention while we conducted our war in the Pacific.
So, we made China essentially a protected state. Uh, we declared that its continued survival was essential to our strategic interests. And Richard Nixon did the same with the People's Republic of China in 1972. But those compelling strategic arguments have been replaced by other arguments that few people [01:54:00] find quite as compelling.
It's compelling because they're not military. Climate change. China is in the lead internationally in dealing with climate change. Its technology is the most advanced in the renewable energy area and it annually installs solar and wind power that is equal to the existing stockpile of all the rest of the world combined.
It is way in the lead in that and we could learn a great deal and we could benefit a great deal from harnessing that technology. But guess what we've done? We have embargoed silicon from Xinjiang on human rights grounds, which are pretty dubious. And we accused the Chinese of genocide in Xinjiang when they re educate people but don't kill them.
And we say that there is no genocide in Gaza when people are being murdered en masse. So this has no credibility, but just recently the Biden administration just put massive tariffs on [01:55:00] imports of solar panels from China. That may help us develop our own industry, but it will not be as advanced nor will it be as economic as what the Chinese produce.
We have gone out of our way. to block Chinese companies from other markets. But in the process, we've overlooked the fact that they have developed those markets. And we are now a declining factor in their international trade. So the influence we once had from interdependence with China is attenuated.
They don't want to have a trade war with us. But they know how to deal with one, and they have begun to do so. They have just embargoed under export controls exports of rare earths, which are essential for our defense industry and for us to make semiconductors here, and it will take us years to overcome these impediments, they are [01:56:00] replicating with us what we have done to them, uh, because we have been embargoing, blocking, export controlling, and cutting supply chains with them like mad.
And they're now reciprocating, which they hadn't done before. So I think it's fair to say that we are now in full economic war with China, with only Mr. Trump's arrival on January 20th, uh, needed to escalate it.
The Weekender: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Destruction Part 2 - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-27-24
JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: The Republican Party has taken its marching orders largely from Fox News and largely from the institutes and think tanks that are funded by the wealth class that helped give birth to the new oligarchical class.
Going back to the George W. Bush era, there were daily talking points that were handed down from Fox News in terms, they were all designed by these think tanks and institutes and then given to Roger Ailes and the Fox News rank and file, of how to talk about things, [01:57:00] what positions to take, you name it.
That was a tightly constructed, permission structure that was a tightly constructed political agenda and propaganda machine. The liberal permission structures are a lot looser. It's moderates talking to one another and giving each other permission to move further and further right over time. Now, that comes with a lot of other incentives that are taking place.
CNN is hemorrhaging viewers. One of the things we've heard from them, uh, you know, each time they keep bringing in new heads of the network, every single one of them says, Well, we, we need to be less of a, of an echo chamber. We need to, we need to be, you know, a lot more independent. And that doesn't mean bringing in voices from the left or even progressives, of course, that means bringing in more and more right wing voices and figures and coverage.[01:58:00]
So, as they're hemorrhaging viewers, they are most definitely going to move towards the right. They're going to have articles and opinion pieces that treat Donald Trump's rantings as if they're normal, that do not critique Elon Musk and other members of the oligarchical class. So they themselves are engaged in their own battle against cognitive dissonance.
I mean all the people who run those networks and run those platforms who are from the wealth class and who are much incentivized in order to carry out the actions of the wealth class, that's what they're doing. But the water in the pot Is being turned up and up and up into a boil until these things are no longer, well, we're just asking questions.
Well, we're just covering both sides. Then all of a sudden we start hearing about invading Canada, invading Mexico, [01:59:00] buying Greenland, taking over the Panama canal. We're not even to January 20th yet. And all we're seeing articles and coverage It goes ahead and creates permission structures for liberals and moderates to go along with this stuff.
CNN is hoping to bring along more Republican viewers. Best of luck with that. They're going to continue moving towards the right. MSNBC, which is similarly hemorrhaging viewers. I mean, I don't even know what's going to happen with them at this point. They very well could be sold in, um, you know, these upcoming mergers and acquisitions that we're getting ready to watch take place during the Trump administration.
These people are just licking their lips and sharpening their knives. They are so excited. And if you pay any attention whatsoever to what executives are saying about what they expect, it's just one larger merger and acquisition after another, consolidating and creating media monopolies, which is all that they want to do, and they were biding their time during [02:00:00] Biden's administration.
This thing hasn't even started, and it's already off to a galloping start. Going through that list again. Ford, which God knows how much money they've got trying to get their electric vehicles off the ground because of the Biden administration. Facebook. We've seen Mark Zuckerberg trying to go full MAGA even after him and the Democrats were, you know, basically playing footsie underneath the table for years.
Amazon. Jeff Bezos was, you know, doing the same thing that Zuckerberg was. Goldman Sachs. I mean, my God, Kamala Harris basically campaigned with Goldman Sachs. General Motors, another EV beneficiary and another corporation that's been in bed with the Democrats, AT& T, the exact same. Not only are they giving money to Trump at this point, trying to bribe him and curry his favor.
They're also bringing in MAGA and GOP consultants to go ahead and quote unquote de [02:01:00] woke themselves. Getting rid of DEI statements, getting rid of ideological, and I'm putting giant scare quotes around that, ideological statements of purpose that they've had on their websites and in their corporate documents.
They're getting prepared. They're getting ready, they're setting the table for what is coming on January 20th. We're already seeing the bleed of the second Trump administration into the days before Trump even takes the oath of office.
Credits
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: That's going to be it for today. As always, keep the comments coming in. I would love to hear your thoughts were questions about today's topic or our upcoming topics—the role of the billionaire bros on our politics and the legacy of Jimmy Carter on his biggest issues. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at (202) 999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected].
The additional sections of the show included clips from Forbes Breaking News, Code Switch, DW [02:02:00] News, Democracy Now!, Wall Street Journal Opinion, the MeidasTouch, Channel 4 News, Time's Radio, Open Source with Christopher Lydon, and the Muckrake Political Podcast. Further details are in the show notes.
Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in our bonus episodes. Thanks to our transcriptionist quartet, Ken, Brian, Ben, and Lara for their volunteer work, helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her bonus show co-hosting. And thanks to all those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift memberships. You can join them by signing up today at BestOfTheLeft.com/support, through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app.
Membership is how you get instant access to our incredibly good and often funny weekly bonus episodes, in addition to there being no ads and chapter markers in all of our regular episodes, all through your regular podcast player. You'll find that link in the show notes, along with the link to join our Discord [02:03:00] community, where you can also continue the discussion. And don't forget to follow us on any and all new social media platforms you may be joining these days.
So, coming to you from far outside the conventional wisdom of Washington DC, my name is Jay!, and this has been the Best of the Left Podcast coming to twice weekly thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.com.
Showing 1 reaction