Opposition to the so called Save Act (H.R.22 – 119th Congress, 2025-2026) by Democrats based on their current arguments concerning threats to democracy seems stupid, nonsensical and counterproductive (to the glee of the GOP). The requirement for photo identification verifying citizenship and right to vote as a prerequisite to voting is something common all over the world, something usually accompanied by required signature and fingerprint verification. In the United States the issue is a bit more complicated because of states’ rights under our federal system and the historical aversion to a national identification card and because of the transient nature of United States society with voting at federal, state and local levels predicated not only on citizenship but on residency. Thus it would seem that appropriately reliable verification documentation would be required at each such level depending on the election involved. A problem, true, but not an irresolvable problem given available technology. However, it could well require implementation of a national identification smart card, centrally updated; not an insurmountable obstacle as credit card companies make clear on a quotidian basis. Mail in voting, the other serious wedge issue, clearly facilitates electoral fraud and just as clearly, makes voting easier. But safeguards can be added to minimize its deficiencies. In addition to the danger of facilitating electoral fraud, mail in voting has been abused in order to “lock in” votes before relevant issues come to light by providing for early voting, but that too can be regulated in order to minimize its abuse, rather than eliminated. Wise Democrats would be much better off electorally by resolving the deficiencies noted rather than by focusing on hyperbolic platitudes.
Still, constitutional arguments based on federalism and states’ rights do have merit. The Constitution vests decisions concerning electoral qualifications and related issues in the states but provides Congress a role should it elect to exercise it, something which Congress has done from time to time albeit not coherently, that is because Congress has limited its role to issues involving “federal elections” and the only real federal election is that “virtual” election taken when state departments of state submit the results of state level elections for electors to the Electoral College (which never, in fact, meets) to the United States Congress for tabulation and consideration. All other elections involving the national government are taken at the state level. The House of Representatives is elected through state district elections in districts established and supervised by the states, the same being true with respect to the Electoral College and, of course, despite the ill-considered and antidemocratic 17th Amendment to the Constitution, election of Senators is also done on a state basis. The members of the Supreme Court are not elected at all but rather appointed through agreement between the Senate and the president. The issue however is, or ought to be, more complex. The truth is that a constitutional amendment related to a number of electoral issues is desperately required.
Issues that need to be dealt with constitutionally include:
Financing of electoral campaigns which should, in all probability, be limited to eligible voters in the electoral districts involved, excluding thereby corporate and related entities (e.g., unions, political action committees, etc.). The Supreme Court’s abhorrent Citizens United decision also needs to be obliterated.
The use of the national census for purposes of determining state representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College needs to be clarified so that for those purposes, only citizens are counted. Not even permanent residents should be counted although for other purposes the census should include everyone resident in a state, regardless of their nationality or electoral status.
The issue of birthright citizenship, poorly dealt with in the 14th amendment, should be clarified. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, it has been seriously abused and is a goad to illegal immigration. Mr. Trump is not always wrong.
The status of undocumented immigrants for diverse purposes should also be dealt with, perhaps creating national standards in order to avoid forum shopping.
Those issues each require serious consideration involving a much more fundamental issue as well. The United States Constitution adopted in 1789 and implemented in 1791 envisioned a federal state comprised of purportedly sovereign states. Really, a fragmentation of sovereignty predicated on the concept of enumerated powers dealt with both in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and in its 9th and 10th amendments. However, as I noted quite a while ago in an article entitled Motley Constitutionalism: a Labyrinthine Aphorism, the concept of federalism has been drastically and negatively impacted since shortly after adoption of the Constitution; first, by John Marshall’s usurpation of constitutional control in the case of Marbury v. Madison, then by the usurpation of issues involving secession, supremacy of legislation and related factors by the federal government as a result of the Civil War of 1861-65 and through the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments imposed following the Civil War (justifiable though they were), then, in the series of Wilson administration constitutional amendments that shattered state power, especially the 16th (taxation), 17th (representation through the Senate), 18th (state police power) and 19th (state control of the right to vote) and finally, by Supreme Court decisions ostensibly based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution during the middle of the 20th century. The foregoing constitutional proposals would further the trend away from federalism and towards a unitary state, as would consistent proposals to do away with the Electoral College in favor of direct, popular election of the president.
Those damned two sides to every issue can be utterly frustrating. However, there is also a third side. The truth is that a broad and serious discussion concerning the federal nature of the Republic is very much past due, a nature that has become largely illusory as chip by chip its federal foundation has become eroded. The reality is that the original concept, first of a confederation of independent states, sort of like the United Nations, and then of a hybrid between a confederation and a unitary state (a federation) has in practice perhaps become obsolete as the United States has “sort of” become one nation rather than a conglomeration of regions, although, politically, it has become divided between urban and rural areas with totally different voting perspectives and an utterly polarized citizenry. That discussion should have been undertaken before each and every decision impacting federalism but apparently the topic and its strategic aspects were ignored in favor of the interests of the moment, pretty much in the same manner as the Save Act is being currently considered: ironically, a legislative act proposed by traditional proponents of states’ rights and opposed by traditional proponents of a powerful central government.
Perhaps it’s way past time for a profound discussion concerning the nature and deficiencies of the Constitution adopted in 1789, two-hundred-and-thirty-seven years ago, and so patched up that it resembles the “motley of ill-matched patches” worn by ancient court jesters. Like the Bible and other sacred treatises, the current Constitution is honored and revered, oaths taken to preserve and defend it, but not really followed.
Perhaps it’s time for a new constitutional convention, one led by serious technocrats and academics rather than politicians, a constitution to then be presented directly for approval or rejection, in whole or in part, by the citizenry it will be meant to govern. A constitution to effectively, efficiently and equitable harmonize our society in order to really attain the common welfare. But the sad truth is that neither major political party is interested in the foregoing as it would eliminate too many of the useful wedge issues through which we are each manipulated, divided and controlled. _____
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Political ideologies are not policy specific, rather, they are based on how the decision making process should function:
Conservatism in the context of democracy is based on the premise that democracy is not temporally static but has three components, past, present and future, all of which must be considered when engaging in fundamental decisions thus change has to be considered from all three perspectives, respect for tradition, dealing with current needs but considering impact on future generations.
Liberalism is more present oriented, problems should be promptly addressed and resolved, notwithstanding tradition, but taking impact on future generations into account.
Socialism is based on the realization that we have two distinct and sometimes incompatible natures, the individual and the collective, and that tensions between them should be resolved taking both into account, when possible, but when the conflict cannot be resolved, the interests of the collective should prevail. A concept illustrated by the fictional Star Trek Vulcan, Spock when he would proclaim that the goof of the many outweighed the good of the few, and as a corollary, of the one.
Libertarianism has components similar to socialism but the primacy when conflict is irreconcilable is in favor of the individual rather than the collective, thus, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. It is the foundational pillar for the antidemocratic concept of “individual rights” such as were championed in the United States’ Bill of Rights.
“Left” and “Right” are incoherently variable terms with reference to the foregoing, as are the concepts of statist (in favor of power vested in the state) and anti-statists, as they tend to change based on what political group controls the state and at what level or the goals of political policies being considered.
These four aspects of decision making need not always be in conflict and wise policy makers should take all three into account. Unfortunately, most current policy makers are not wise and are dedicated primarily to the perspective that the many exist to serve the few and must be controlled by any means possible, while making it seem that the many, rather than the few, are the decision makers, when the truth is the obverse, and that generalized individual liberty is an impediment to such control. _____
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Este comentario, que trata con la precandidatura de la senadora y anterior alcaldesa de Bogotá, Clara Eugenia López Obregón, refleja mi opinión positiva sobre ella, posición que he tenido desde ya muchos años. La verdad, posición que asumí desde que volví a Colombia en el 2007 después de una vida en los EE.UU. Desde su participación en los debates presidenciales de 2014 he creído que ella era la mejor opción presidencial para Colombia y por muchas razones, aunque admiro mucho al presidente Petro y también a dos de los otros actuales precandidatos presidenciales del Pacto Histórico, Iván Cepeda y Carolina Corcho.
Clara parece especial por razones complicadas, incluso quizás incoherentes en ciertos aspectos. De lo que entiendo, de joven, durante los años 70, fue amiga y quizás novia de Álvaro Uribe Vélez, era durante el tiempo cuando él entonces señor Uribe supuestamente era liberal. El mismo Álvaro Uribe Vélez quien hoy en día es el mayor oponente de lo que ella ahora apoya, pero yo aspiro que, basado en ese pasado, las relaciones de ella con la derecha colombiana (odio las frases ultraderecha y ultra izquierda que solo son peyorativas) podrían ser positivas o por lo menos cordiales, aun habiendo sido ella por ya muchos años definitivamente de izquierda. Creo que por su experiencia y forma de ser podría lograr una relación política cordial con quienes piensan diferente sin ser media tibia como el señor Fajardo o amarga como el senador Robledo y eso mucho necesitamos en Colombia para minimizar la polarización política, cívica y cultural en la cual nos encontramos. Ademas, por su extensa trayectoria política, creo que tiene relaciones, si no siempre excelentes, por lo menos adecuadas, con muchos políticos tradicionales que sin denegar su asociación con brechas morales y éticas con respecto al abuso del poder para su propio beneficio, siguen esenciales para lograr reformas importantes, como lastimosamente ha descubierto (o debe haber descubierto) el Presidente Petro. Lo anterior, en mi opinión, la hace la mejor candidata para lograr el éxito no solo en las próximas elecciones, ampliando en forma importante el anticipado “Frente Amplio”, pero en la gobernanza esencial que necesitaría lograr si su campaña fuera exitosa. Pero, ademas de esos temas pragmáticos, creo que es la persona más preparada que tenemos en Colombia para enfrentar y resolver en forma positiva los numerosos retos que nos enfrentan. A diferencia con otros precandidatos nobles y sinceros, Clara es multidimensional en su experiencia, conocimiento y enfoque.
Biografía
Entonces, echémosle una mirada, aunque superficial, a su trayectoria cívica y política. Datos extensos y específicos al respecto no serán difíciles encontrar. De acuerdo a Wikipedia, una fuente de poca confianza con respecto a muchas cosas pero, en este caso, pareciéndose neutral, ella quedó huérfana muy joven pero fue “adoptada política y familiarmente” por el líder político liberal Alfonso López Michelsen, presidente de Colombia entre 1974 y 1978 y el primo de su padre. Ella estudió economía en la Universidad de Harvard y, posteriormente, se licenció en derecho en la Universidad de los Andes. En la actualidad, es candidata a doctorado en derecho tributario y financiero en la Universidad de Salamanca.
Durante su estadía en Harvard, se involucró activamente en protestas en contra de la incursión de los Estados Unidos en Vietnam e inicio un cambio filosófico desde sus raíces en el progresismo liberal hacia la izquierda, llegando a entender realidades sobre esa potencia del norte que por tanto tiempo nos ha dominado con desprecio, y que tanto daño nos ha hecho, algo que en los últimos días el señor Trump ha hecho más claro que nunca. Por eso, a diferencia de mucha de la clase política en la cual nació, ella no ha vendido sus valores y su persona por los beneficios económicos personales con los cuales la oligarquía estadounidense compra la lealtad de tantos líderes en nuestro continente.
Regresó a Colombia en 1974 aceptando un cargo en la Secretaría Económica de la presidencia de Colombia, presidencia ocupada en ese tiempo por su mentor, el liberal Alfonso López Michelsen, movimiento en el cual inicialmente milito pero que abandonó en forma permanente en 1979, al parecer, reaccionando en forma muy inesperada con respecto a una disputa entre los expresidentes López Michelsen y Carlos Lleras Restrepo, irónicamente tomando el lado ideológico a favor de Lleras Restrepo y su pupilo Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento. Por lo tanto, se inscribió en el Nuevo Liberalismo, movimiento fundado por Galán y el exalcalde de Neiva, Rodrigo Lara Bonilla.
Como militante en el Nuevo Liberalismo fue elegida concejal y eventualmente presidenta del concejo distrital en Bogotá, eso durante los años 80 y, posteriormente, fue elegida contralora distrital de Bogotá. En el Nuevo Liberalismo apoyó la candidatura presidencial de Carlos Galán en 1982 (no obstante la posición contraria de su anterior benefactor y mentor Alfonso López) pero en 1986 cambio su perspectiva y afiliación política, moviéndose más hacia la izquierda política y salió del Nuevo Liberalismo para afiliarse con la Unión Patriótica desde la cual, en oposición a la candidatura presidencial de Galán en 1986, apoyó a Jaime Pardo Leal quien quedó en tercer lugar en esa contienda antes de ser asesinado en 1987. En 1988, por primero vez, se lanzó como candidata a la alcaldía de Bogotá bajo la bandera de la Unión Patriótica, elección que fue impactada en forma irónica por el secuestro del candidato que resultó exitoso, quizás por haber sido secuestrado y liberado, el candidato conservador y conocido periodista, Andrés Pastrana Arango, apoyado por su padre, el expresidente Misael Pastrana.
1990 fue un año desastroso para la izquierda colombiana y, en realidad, para toda Colombia. Bernardo Jaramillo Ossa, el candidato de la Unión Patriótica apoyado por Clara para la presidencia fue asesinado en abril de 1990, después del asesinato de Luis Carlos Galán en agosto de 1989 y antes del asesinato de Carlos Pizarro, también en abril de 1990. Traumatizada políticamente, como se encontraba gran parte del país, Clara se alejó de la política por casi una década, dedicándose a la academia y respaldando a las ambiciones políticas de su esposo, Carlos Romero, como concejal. En 2002 volvió a involucrarse en temas de gobernanza cuando fue nombrada Auditora General de Colombia por el entonces presidente, su viejo pretendiente, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, función que ejerció por tres años hasta que se vio obligada a denunciar ante la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Colombia la posible infiltración de organizaciones armadas ilegales de extrema derecha en el Estado Colombiano, eso después de que Salvatore Mancuso, el exjefe máximo de la Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, dio a conocer que al menos el 35% de los miembros del actual Congreso de la Republica eran aliados suyos. Esa denuncia de Clara dio inicio al proceso investigativo que adelantaría el supremo tribunal, y que derivaría en un proceso judicial que desató un escándalo político en Colombia conocido como la Parapolítica.
Encontrándose ya estigmatizada por el “uribismo” decidió volver a involucrarse en la contienda electoral apoyando la nueva conglomeración política de izquierda, el Polo Democrático Alternativo, partido por el cual aspiró a la Cámara de Representantes en 2006, perdiendo curul por poco más de cien votos. Por un tiempo después de esa campaña considero una nueva campaña para la alcaldía de Bogotá pero decidió apoyar la candidatura de Samuel Moreno Rojas quien, como a tantos otros, la engaño por un tiempo con respecto a su falta de ética, algo demostrada por su rol en el denominado Carrusel de la contratación y que resulto en su destitución como alcalde. Para Clara eso fue una gran decepción pero, a la vez, una gran oportunidad de aprendizaje.
Como importante asesora en la campaña de Samuel Moreno Rojas Clara fue designada como Secretaria de Gobierno en la nueva administración municipal bogotana lo cual requirió que su esposo, Carlos Romero, renunciara a su escaño en el Concejo de Bogotá. Como Secretaria de Gobierno, llego a denunciar el caso de “falsos positivos” en la supuesta guerra uribista en contra de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (las FARC) y otros movimientos insurgentes, caso en el cual, para recibir “comisiones” por cada insurgente “eliminado”, táctica sugerida por los gobiernos de George W. Bush y Barak Obama en los EE.UU., miembros de las fuerzas públicas colombianas capturaban a jóvenes inocentes, disfrazándolos de insurgentes para entregar sus cadáveres en cambio recompensas. En específico, la investigación en la cual participo Clara trató con 19 jóvenes que figuraban desaparecidos y que fueron ingresados por el ejército a medicina legal en la ciudad de Ocaña, Norte de Santander, como muertos en combate. El resultante escandalo a nivel nacional e internacional culminó con la destitución de 27 oficiales del ejército por su involucramiento en el asesinato de más de tres mil jóvenes inocentes en diversas regiones de Colombia.
Clara ocupó la Secretaría Distrital de Gobierno hasta el 10 de marzo de 2010, fecha en la que fue escogida como fórmula vicepresidencial de Gustavo Petro para las elecciones presidenciales de 2010 en las que alcanzaron más de un millón trescientos mil votos, pero no resultaron elegidos. Tras la renuncia de Jaime Dussán Calderón a la presidencia del Polo Democrático, el Comité Ejecutivo del partido la proclamó unánimemente como nueva presidenta de esa colectividad, cargo que asumió en abril de 2010. Renuncio a ese cargo temporalmente en junio de 2011 porque, habiendo brotado el escándalo de la corrupción de la administración municipal y la resultante destitución de Samuel Moreno Rojas como alcalde, ella fue escogida el 8 de junio de 2011 por el entonces presidente de la Republica, Manuel Santos, para remplazar a Moreno como alcaldesa encargada, un reto que parecía desagradable e imposible y con desastrosas implicaciones para un futuro político. Bogotá se encontraba política y económicamente ahogada, después de tres años, solo el 15% del presupuesto se había ejecutado y la confianza de los bogotanos en su gobierno era solo del 7%. Pero Clara y su equipo lograron milagros. Aunque solo se esperaba que mantuviera el cargo por solo tres meses, se amplió su periodo hasta el primero de enero de 2012 y su rendimiento fue inesperadamente excelente, tan productivo como el de Moreno había sido desastroso. En su discurso de posesión prometió que defendería el patrimonio de los ciudadanos rechazando la privatización de la Empresa de Telecomunicaciones de Bogotá ETB, pero también preservando para los ciudadanos en su conjunto los otros bienes distritales. Dirigiéndose al escándalo del denominado carrusel de contratación municipal, prometió transparencia en la firma de contratos y licitaciones. De acuerdo a la encuesta Gallup, entro a su cargo en un ambiente de desconfianza total con una aprobación minúscula para salió de su cargo apoyada por el 76% de los ciudadanos, la más amplia aprobación registrada hasta entonces para la alcaldía de Bogotá. Entre sus numerosos logros se destacaron el plan decenal de agua que por primera vez otorgó de manera gratuita el mínimo vital a las familias más pobres de la capital, el subsidio al transporte público para las personas con discapacidad y sus cuidadores y la expedición de decreto de participación incidente de los ciudadanos en la confección de los planes y programas del gobierno de la ciudad. Cuando entro a su cargo, después de tres años solo se había ejecutado el 15% del presupuesto municipal autorizado, cuando lo entrego, se había ejecutado, en solo ocho meses, el 95%.[1]
Luego de su rol como salvadora de Bogotá, Clara volvió a las contiendas electorales primero, como la candidata del Polo Democrático para la presidencia de Colombia en las elecciones del 2014 donde obtuvo casi dos millones de votos y ocupó la cuarta posición, y luego, como candidata a la Alcaldía de Bogotá en representación del Polo Democrático, la Unión Patriótica y el Movimiento Alternativo Indígena y Social (MAIS).
No fue exitosa en esa elección pero el 25 de abril de 2016, Clara fue designada por el presidente Juan Manuel Santos, a quien había apoyado en segunda, como Ministra de Trabajo, cargo que ocupó hasta el 5 de mayo de 2017 cuando renuncio para participar en las elecciones presidenciales de 2018. Desde el 20 de julio de 2022 ha sido senadora de la Republica. Además de lo anterior, ha sido profesora de la Universidad del Rosario y Universidad de los Andes.
De nuevo, precandidata a la presidencia
En 2025, Clara confirmó su precandidatura presidencial para las elecciones de 2026 postulándose a través de la coalición política “Unitarios” conformado por cerca de 15 partidos que se presenta como un complemento fraterno al Pacto Histórico. La meta de su campaña es participar en la consulta del “Frente Amplio” en marzo de 2026. En esa consulta se enfrentarían precandidatos como Roy Barreras, Camilo Romero y la figura que finalmente designe el Pacto Histórico (probablemente o Carolina Corcho o Iván Cepeda), su objetivo siendo la continuación de la transformación iniciada por Gustavo Petro.
En lo personal, no soy miembro del partido político Colombia Humana o del nuevo partido unificado, el Pacto Histórico, aunque a ambos los he asesorado y creo en sus ideales. No soy “petrista” aunque conozco y apoyo a Gustavo Petro porque esa frase huele demasiadamente al caudillismo en el cual ni él ni yo creemos. Para mí, como analista político, me es importante ser independiente de organizaciones políticas donde la ética insiste que cada miembro debe acatar a las decisiones colectivas. Estoy muy de acuerdo con las políticas que la administración actual ha propuesto y por las cuales ha luchado, aunque sin el éxito que merecen, pero me ha preocupado la falta de dirección política personal por parte del presidente, algo que me parece esencial en negociaciones directas con la oposición y hasta con aliados, roles que han asumido diversas personas en formas algo incoherentes. No obstante esa observación, entiendo que dada la histórica corrupción de nuestros líderes políticos, burócratas, empresarios y medios de comunicación, lograr los cambios transcendentales requeridos para crear la sociedad justa, eficiente e igualitaria que merecemos los colombianos es un tema muy complicado y, en última instancia, parece requerir intervención ciudadana por medio de una nueva constituyente, algo con el cual el presidente Petro y Clara están de acuerdo. Mi perspectiva con respecto a la constitución colombiana es mucho más drástica que la de ellos, algo sobre cual circulé hace un tiempo un artículo “Porque Colombia ha requerido un nuevo Constituyente desde el 1991”. Yo creo que los defectos constitucionales son tan profundos que requieren una revisión total de la Constitución de 1991, una constitución larguísima, llena de promesas incumplibles e instituciones incoherentes y en la cual, en importantes partes, los sujetos no son los ciudadanos sino los partidos políticos. Como ejemplo de lo último solo hay que entender que la prohibición a lo doble militancia les prohíbe a los supuestos representantes del Pueblo votar su conciencia, en vez, siendo legalmente forzados a votar como deciden sus partidos. En base de lo último, las reformas esenciales propuestas por el actual gobierno para eliminar corrupción y lograr sistemas de salud, pensión, medicina, trabajo, tributo, etc., justos y eficientes han sido derrotadas.
No obstante esa perspectiva compartida sobre la necesidad de una reforma constitucional, no estoy de acuerdo con la manera en la cual Clara cree que se debe implementar una constituyente, eso siendo por medio de democracia directa utilizando tecnologías novedosas para coordinar los esfuerzos. Pero eso es lo único con lo cual no estoy de acuerdo en las propuestas de Clara. Me encantaria si fuera posible pero coordinar treinta millones de participantes me parece una tarea imposible, en especial cunado trata con temas tan complicados que requieren conocimiento supremamente complejo sobre derecho, teorías constitucionales, economía, política comparada e historia.
Entonces, ¿por qué no los otros dos precandidatos que también mucho admiro?
Carolina Corcho es una brillante y ética persona con experiencia en temas cívicos y profundo conocimiento sobre el disfuncional sistema de salud colombiana pero carece de experiencia electoral y ejecutiva y todavía es algo unidimensional en su experticia. Ademas, creo que para ella sería difícil interactuar en forma eficiente con fuerzas políticas y económicas opositoras a las reformas en las cuales ella, como Clara, como Iván Cepeda y como el presidente Petro creen. Iván Cepeda ha sido entre los mejores legisladores de nuestro país con impecable trayectoria en la lucha contra la corrupción y por la paz, lo admiro enormemente y lo quiero. Pero carece de experiencia administrativa y ejecutiva y el uribismo y sus aliados son sus enemigos mortales, lo odian aún más que odian al presidente Petro, entonces gobernar en forma exitosa sería difícil, quizás imposible.
Eso deja a Clara que lo tiene todo, la experiencia tanto electoral como administrativa habiendo sido ministra, alcaldesa y senadora, ella tiene los ideales que admiro, los cuales comparte con Carolina e Iván y con el presidente y, tiene la posibilidad de interactuar en forma positiva con diversas corrientes políticas para crear una coalición amplia capaz de implementar importantes reformas. Como Carolina e Iván, es brillante y ética y progresista, pero con mayor capacidad de unirnos y de minimizar la polarización que tan horriblemente nos infecta.
[1] Por la necesidad de circular esta reflexión en forma expedita, no se ha logrado revisarla en temas de estilo, etc., por lo cual se solicita disculpas.
Guillermo Calvo Mahé es escritor, comentarista, analista político y académico residente en la República de Colombia. Aspira ser poeta y filósofo empírico y a veces se lo cree. Hasta el 2017 coordinaba los programas de Ciencia Política, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. En la actualidad, participa en entrevistas radiales y televisadas, foros, seminarios y congresos cívicos y edita y publica la revista virtual, The Inannite Review disponible en Substack.com/. Tiene títulos académicos en ciencias políticas (del Citadel, la universidad militar de la Carolina del Sur), derecho (de la St. John’s University en la ciudad de Nueva York), estudios jurídicos internacionales (de la facultad posgrado de derecho de la New York University) y estudios posgrado de lingüística y traducción (del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de la Florida). Sin embargo, también es fascinado por la mitología, la religión, la física, la astronomía y las matemáticas, especialmente en lo relacionado con lo cuántico y la cosmogonía. Puede ser contactado en guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com y gran parte de su escritura está disponible a través de su blog en https://guillermocalvo.com/.
La justicia colombiana ha encontrado culpable de delitos penales a quien ha sido el hombre más poderoso del país, el ex presidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez. La decisión me sorprendió porque la justicia en Colombia tradicionalmente ha ignorado abusos del poder por parte de su clase dirigente pero, a la vez, la decisión duele porque, por correcta que sea, muy probable es que nos dividirá aún más como pueblo.
Un víctima de la injusticia tan común en Colombia, mi amigo Luis Fernando Rosas Londoño, un hombre talentoso, inteligente y honrado quien fue injustamente privado de sus derechos políticos y de su libertad, lleva tiempo rogándoles a los dirigentes políticos de nuestros partidos que para sanarnos como pueblo, para realmente lograr la paz, necesitamos una amnistía general, algo que, irónicamente, entiendo fue rechazado por el ex presidente Uribe. Luis Fernando no lo propone por su propio beneficio. Lo hace teniendo en cuenta las personas inocentes que han sido castigados en procesos jurídicos injustos y, a la vez, entendiendo que con tantos pecados por todos lados de nuestra política, se necesita “reformatear nuestro disco duro” e iniciar de nuevo.
No obstante lo anterior, reconozco que aunque el concepto de un perdon general es importante para re-direccionarnos hacia un futuro más civil y más decente, la corrupción, sea política, económica, académica o militar, etcétera, la corrupción que infecta a nuestra sociedad en forma tan profunda se tiene que minimizar, entendiéndose que acabar con ella es improbable, si no imposible; entendiendo que en un sistema político funcional, la violación de responsabilidades públicas tiene que ser el mayor delito con los castigos más serios.
Entonces, en este instante, nos encontramos en una situación, a la vez tan positiva como amarga. Una situación probablemente sin solución. No estoy feliz que el expresidente Uribe se haya encontrado culpable de violar leyes esenciales para el funcionamiento de nuestro sistema legal, pero estoy aún más triste que él nos ha puesto en la situación en la cual nos encontramos, que él ha violado sus más sagrados juramentos. Y me entristece profundamente que, en toda probabilidad, el expresidente Uribe insistirá, o en forma directa o indirecta, que sus seguidores rechacen la decisión en su contra no obstante el impacto que tenga esa reacción con respecto al bienestar popular. Espero que, en forma directa o indirecta, el expresidente Uribe insistirá en que sus seguidores organicen protestas y manifestaciones masivas en las cuales la violencia será probable.
Claro que es posible que si el expresidente es tan noble como creen sus seguidores, pondrá el bienestar de nuestro pueblo por encima de sus intereses personales. Él podría, sin admitir o negar las acusaciones en su contra (que ahora son sentencia), aceptarlas y pedirles a sus seguidores que también acepten la decisión jurídica existente. Y quizás, para minimizar la polarización, si el presidente Gustavo Petro también es tan noble como creen sus seguidores, él podría otorgarle al ex presidente Uribe clemencia en forma de un perdon ejecutivo, no en forma de algún tipo de negocio extrajudicial, pero como una ofrenda de paz para todos los colombianos en la cual, las horribles brechas entre nosotros se puedan realmente empezar a sanar y la desconfianza que nos ha dividido por tanto tiempo impidiendo las reformas esenciales en nuestras políticas públicas que urgentemente necesitamos, se pueda remplazar con un espíritu de colaboración.
No veo lo último probable pero hoy, por medio de nuestras reacciones con respecto a este juicio, se podría crear una oportunidad casi única para reconocer que los colombianos todos somos hermanos, no obstante nuestras diferencias de opinión, y que ya es tiempo que rechacemos el ejemplo mítico de Caín y Abel en favor del ejemplo de ese antiguo nazareno que tantos colombianos supuestamente aman.
Ya pronto veremos que va a ocurrir.
Temo que será lo peor pero, a la vez, aspiro que en eso yo esté equivocado. Yo salí de Colombia, como tantos otros, a los seis años, salí no en forma voluntaria pero por una decisión de mis padres basada en la violencia en la cual se encontraba nuestro país. Pero nunca olvidé que yo era y siempre seré colombiano, y que desde ese país hacia el norte que tanto daño nos ha hecho, me era muy difícil entender cómo, en un pueblo como el nuestro, un pueblo lleno de lo mejor que puede brindar la naturaleza, nos encontrábamos tan infelices el uno contra el otro. Y que muchos de los mejores ciudadanos nuestros, los más educados y los más nobles, huían en un flujo permanente hacia el norte donde eran despreciados e insultados, doctores trabajando como meseros.
Desde lejos era fácil percibir que unidos, aunque con diferencias en temas de creencias y opiniones, seriamos entre los pueblos más exitosos del mundo. En parte, para ayudar a lograr eso, fue que siempre quise volver a mi patria, algo que logré en el 2007, ese año tan especial en el cual nuestro pueblo, en masivas manifestaciones, demostró que estaba harto con nuestros eternos conflictos internos. Al volver, tuve el privilegio de trabajar por una década en la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales con estudiantes de diversas perspectivas políticas, pero unidos en el respeto por sus diferencias mientras dedicados a superarlas para lograr el bienestar común, estudiantes enamorados con su pueblo, estudiantes que ya están ascendiendo las laderas de las responsabilidades políticas y en la gran mayoría de los casos, haciéndolo en forma ética y eficiente. Esos ex estudiantes míos y otros jóvenes que he conocido me hacen pensar que la Colombia que merecemos no solo es posible sino probable, probable si evitamos seguir enmarañados en las mallas del pasado.
Hoy, haremos importantes decisiones, quizás existenciales, como individuos pero también como pueblo. El desastre del juicio en el cual se encuentra el expresidente Uribe no es ocasión para sentirnos o vencedores o vencidos, no es ocasión para ser felices o sentirnos heridos. Es una ocasión excepcional para reflexionar y mirar hacia el futuro, recordando la regla de oro: tratando a los demás como quisiéramos que otros nos trataran. Entonces, como tantas veces decimos en ocasiones más positivas, “que viva Colombia” y “que vivan los colombianos”, … todos.
Guillermo Calvo Mahé es escritor, comentarista, analista político y académico residente en la República de Colombia. Aspira ser poeta y a veces se lo cree. Hasta el 2017 coordinaba los programas de Ciencia Política, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. En la actualidad, participa en entrevistas radiales y televisadas, foros, seminarios y congresos cívicos y edita y publica la revista virtual, The Inannite Review disponible en Substack.com/. Tiene títulos académicos en ciencias políticas (del Citadel, la universidad militar de la Carolina del Sur), derecho (de la St. John’s University en la ciudad de Nueva York), estudios jurídicos internacionales (de la facultad posgrado de derecho de la New York University) y estudios posgrado de lingüística y traducción (del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de la Florida). Sin embargo, también es fascinado por la mitología, la religión, la física, la astronomía y las matemáticas, especialmente en lo relacionado con lo cuántico y la cosmogonía. Puede ser contactado en guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com y gran parte de su escritura está disponible a través de su blog en https://guillermocalvo.com/.
On July 21, 2005, Patrick Lawrence wrote a commentary concerning Gaza, income inequality, Israel and politics entitled “Sun Valley vs. Queensbridge”. It was published in Consortium News, one of the very few still reliable independent sources of information (Volume 30, Number 202 —Tuesday, July 22, 2025). To a great extent the article dealt with the cataclysmic victory of Zohran Mamdani in the recent New York City Democratic Party mayoral primary, apparently as unexpected as the purported victory of the mythic David over the equally mythic Goliath over three millennia ago. The article brought to mind, at least for me, how deluded, confused and manipulated most of the United States’ electorate has always been and the panic which the awakening of even a portion of that electorate is generating among the corrupt elite who has maintained us politically and economically enslaved since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. A sign I for one view as positive.
To many of my friends, especially among well-educated and intelligent fundamentalist Christians (as well as to many among some of my Jewish friends), Mr. Mamdani poses an existential threat because he is a vocal critic of the abuses of what passes for capitalism (but is in reality kleptocracy) as well as because he vocally opposes the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people orchestrated by American and Israeli Zionists. He is thus, in their perception, a “communist” anti-Semite. Those “buzz” terms are essential in order to deflect from factual analysis of his beliefs, beliefs which coincide with the premises underlying the economic and civic philosophy of the “messiah” who my Christian friends claim to worship and adore. Ironic, but that pavlovian reaction had been carefully crafted using behaviorist psychology long before B.F. Skinner invented that art form. It is essential in order to secure the counterintuitive support of decent people for indecent realities and for policies that are clearly against their own interests, policies such as universal healthcare and universal education at all levels and a real social safety net, something artfully crafted by the kleptocrats who rule us.
The foregoing has led me to reflect on the strange distortion of terminology that the kleptocratic corporate media has imposed on us. For example: “antisemitism” now means opposition to mass murder, torture, rape as a political tool, ethnic cleansing, organized mass theft and genocide. And “communism”? Well, that now apparently means daring to support mercy, equity, meritocracy, economic justice and the golden rule, but especially, the economic doctrines espoused by that certain Palestinian who, two millennia ago, taught that hoarded wealth was the surest route to perdition. You may well have heard some of the sayings attributed to him in the Christian gospels, “that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a hoarder of wealth to enter into the kingdom of heaven” and promising that “the meek shall inherit the earth”. Evidently horrible ideas.
Mr. Lawrence´s article, for some reason, also made me reflect on another hysterical current campaign, one again attributable to the kleptocratic elites who control us, in this case, through their so called Democratic Party (the kleptocracy of course controls both the Democratic and Republican parties). In this ancillary campaign, massively hypocritical outrage is being expressed at the association of Jeffrey Epstein which took place prior to 2003[1] with Donald Trump, ignoring Mr. Epstein’s similar association with myriads of Democratic Party heroes. It seems designed specifically to distract from the real scandal associated with the late Mr. Epstein, that being his role as an agent of the Israeli Mossad in which he used and abused under age men and women to obtain compromising material on leaders in politics, industry, commerce, etc., all apparently in order to blackmail them into supporting Israeli goals, a role which led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and millions of innocent people in the Middle East and elsewhere through perpetual wars whose primary goal has been the implementation of the Zionist final solution to the Palestinian problem and the creation of the “Greater Israel” to which Zionists aspire. Indeed, the Democratic Party’s orchestrated outrage seems designed to deflect consideration of related, recently declassified information concerning probable Mossad involvement in the assassination of United States President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (ironically a Democratic Party hero) as well as concerning likely Mossad involvement with the destruction of New York’s World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. That same campaign, of course, also deflects attention from the genocide that has been perpetrated on the Palestinian people by Israel during the past seventy-five years, genocide affected with the full cooperation of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany as well as with the tacit assistance of the Middle East dictatorships such countries established and maintained following the Second World War. You know, the war purportedly fought to eliminate the threats to human rights posed by the Nazis and their allies.
Not that Mr. Trump does not deserve serious criticism but, that the foregoing criticism is directed at his amorous misadventures during the past century rather than his current support for Zionist genocide or his increasingly incoherent international economic policies or the betrayal of his promises not to perpetuate the cycle of endless wars and foreign military interventions in which the United States has been engaged during the past century, is not only ludicrous, but is blatantly malevolent. Then again, the Democratic Party is at least as guilty as Mr. Trump with respect to much of the foregoing so, … birds of a feather, … in every respect.
Caveat:
I am not a fan of Mr. Trump, who, for personal reasons, I dislike.
I am not a believer in any organized religion and find the Abrahamic religions especially disturbing and, inter se, incoherent. Especially given that of the three Abrahamic branches, Islam is the most reviled while being the closest to both of the others. Indeed, it is the bridge between them.
I am bitterly opposed to most political parties, both in the United States and abroad, finding that they are the embodiment of the “factionalism” rather than statesmanship that, in the Federalist Papers, James Madison promised would not occur.
As a historian, I am not a respecter of the collection of fallacies peddled to all of us as history but designed, not to elucidate, but to keep us deluded.
As I write this I am completing my seventy-ninth year on our planet, most of them depressed by how consistently we devolve into the people we would least like to see staring back at us from our mirrors. Nonetheless, it seems that hope is not yet altogether extinguished, especially when people like Mr. Mamdani continue to appear from time to time, although admittedly, usually only briefly and all too often all to quickly converted into that against which they once railed.
But, back to Mr. Mamdani who has become the focus of hate, fear and despair from followers of Mr. Trump and especially from traditionalists in the Democratic Party. He is, at least for now, perhaps a sign that, paraphrasing the articulate albeit hypocritical Abraham Lincoln:
“Perhaps the kleptocracy cannot fool all of us all of the time.”
Fortunately for the kleptocracy, because he is a naturalized rather than native born United States citizen, Mr. Mamdani can never become president. But, then again, perhaps sometime soon, someone who shares his values will appear on the national stage and, unlike Mr. Trump, will not so quickly betray the principles he promised to sustain. _____
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
[1] Mr. Trump purportedly ended his fifteen-year friendship with Mr. Epstein that year, barring him from Mar o Lago because of an incident involving unwanted advances towards the fourteen-year-old daughter of another of Mr. Trump’s acquaintances.
In terms of political organizations, the concepts of “conservative”, “liberal”, “progressive”, “left”, right” and “center” no longer have any real meaning. Their meaning and context have been vacuumed, distorted and destroyed by those in charge of perpetrating and perpetuating lies and disinformation, the corporate media, faux historians, controlled academia and those who control the Internet (including both social media and search engines where algorithms rule). Such terms are now merely tools to polarize us, to divide us and to make us easier to control.
Two relevant opposing concepts do however exist: state-ism and populism.
Statists include an ironic amalgam of those who honestly believe that current governments are beneficent and the answer to all our social, economic and political problems with cynical deep state operatives who see the state as the ideal tool to control us and through such control, to extract ever increasing profits for the billionaire class. The latter is comprised of moles buried throughout the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the media who assure that government works to perpetuate the worst among us in power while keeping the bulk of us safely divided.
Populists are an amalgam from diverse, frequently opposing sociopolitical perspectives who share a belief that the institutions of government have been perverted and thus oppose them. In general, they share beliefs in real democracy and real liberty but acknowledge that such concepts do not currently exist. Populists comprise the vast majority but have permitted statist to maintain them divided into opposing camps based on the fake labels listed above, i.e.: “conservative”, “liberal”, “progressive”, “left”, right” and “center”, which populists take seriously. The labels are institutionally fake but contextually relevant. The differences exist for populists but the reality is that far more unites each sector of the populist political spectrum than that which divides them. Something that statists seek to obfuscate at all costs because, should populists attain their common interests and often complimentary goals, the statist empire could be destroyed and the dreams of equity, relative equality, justice and peaceful coexistence might become realities.
Statists use divisive emotions to maintain dictatorial control: what were once known as “wedge issues” which keep populists at each others’ throats. Issues like abortion and gun control and immigration, and they distort sociocultural divisions like gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality and religion keeping real problems festering because as long as they remain unresolved, populists can be kept from uniting. And, of course, the most cynical and thus most effective statists in the United States are today found in the Democratic Party and among the traditionalist wing of the Republican Party, and in the United Kingdom, in the once populist Labour Party and in the Conservative Party, in each case, merely virtually identical two-headed-Hydrae.
In the meantime, Hillary Clinton and her groupies try to re-seize control of the Democratic Party from a dazed and confused Joe Biden so that she can have one more chance to be the first female president while the Obama camp keeps pulling tangled strings behind the scenes to deflect her aspirations but is itself confused as to whether Michele or “AG” (his real name is Eric but he can’t let us forget he was once the Attorney General) Holder should replace their inept current figurehead, and Donald Trump keeps smirking and holding massive rallies while we ignore that three decent people are seeking to lead us out of the Deep State wilderness: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Jill Stein and Cornell West, PhD.
And the rich keep getting richer, the poor, poorer, the economic center keeps shrinking and people keep dying massively in elective and genocidal wars while defense industry dividends soar and the corporate media shouts:
“Nothing here to see! Move along!!! Turn the page!!! Or else!!!”
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, the Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Como ocurre en muchos otros países, en Colombia, al parecer, adoramos a nuestra Constitución. “Adoramos” es la palabra perfecta por que la tratamos como si fuera una reliquia sagrada no obstante que en casi todas sus metas, posiblemente en todas, ha sido un fracaso. La “adoramos” pero en poco la respetamos y en menos la cumplimos. Eso se ha notado en diversas ocasiones por la derecha política y también por la izquierda. Pero el rechazo a su modificación, una modificación seria, ha sido inmenso. ¿Y, por qué?
Pues en parte, la realidad es que una reforma eficiente de nuestra Constitución actual tendría que ser tan extensa que resultaría en su remplazo. Nuestra Constitución está llena de palabras lindas y conceptos hermosos, tantos que es la segunda más larga del mundo. Pero entre las lindas palabras y los hermosos conceptos están las cláusulas que permiten evadir todas sus promesas. Un laberinto de requisitos técnicos incumplibles. Sus promesas han sido ignoradas porque su implementación requiere colaboración política en el Congreso y requiere un Ministerio Publico honesto y eficiente, algo que, por la manera en el cual sus miembros son escogidos, ha resultado imposible.
Para evaluar una constitución, cualquiera constitución, se tiene que medir que tanto se ha logrado cumplir con sus metas. Hagamos el ejercicio: ¿Se estableció la paz? ¿Se eliminó la corrupción? ¿Se logró la equidad? ¿Se logró la igualdad? ¿Se logró la justicia? ¿Se ha eliminó la impunidad? ¿Se ha disminuido la polarización? ¿Se ha cumplido con los derechos prometidos? ¿Se ha logrado la democracia?
Si somos honestos y objetivos, creo que en ninguno de estos casos fundamentales la respuesta sea sí. Entonces, ¿para qué sirve esta Constitución? Bonita si es. Pero es disfuncional. ¿Y, por qué?
Pues, en gran parte no es justo decir que no sirve. Si les sirve a algunos. A los corruptos, a los ladrones. A los que tienen el dinero para evadir la justicia. Pero más que todo, les sirve a los partidos políticos. Los reales sujetos de la Constitución colombiana del 1991 no son los ciudadanos, ellos son meros objetos. Los sujetos son los partidos políticos y por ende, los que se benefician de la Constitución son los que controlan a esos partidos.
Para entender lo anterior se requiere entender la diferencia entre un sujeto y un objeto. Un objeto es una persona jurídica o natural o institucional sobre cual el poder del estado es ejercido. Eso incluyo humanos, animales y hasta objetos inanimados, como carros, mesas, comida, etc. Un sujeto es un objeto que tiene derechos de manejo sobre el poder político que lo impacta, pero derecho y poder real, no meras ilusiones.
En Colombia, los legisladores en el Congreso tienen que hacer lo que dice su partido o pierden sus curules. No elegimos individuos al Congreso sino partidos. Lo único que podemos hacer, si las listas electorales son abiertas, es cambiar el orden en el cual los candidatos podrían recibir sus curules. Nada más. Por lo tanto, no podemos elegir a quienes nos parecen los mejores y los más honestos líderes políticos para nuestro congreso, o para nuestras asambleas departamentales, o para nuestros concejos municipales. Eso no es democracia.
En Colombia, planes estratégicos parecen imposibles lograr porque un plan estratégico requiere más de un periodo electoral para completarse, sea de derecha o de izquierda. Tenemos la absurda noción de, no solo prohibir la reelección, sino también prohibir que una persona que ha ocupado un cargo político ejecutivo, o tiene familiares que han ejercido una función ejecutiva, tenga que esperar un año para superar esas limitaciones que actualmente son inhabilitantes. Por lo tanto, lo normal es que ningún líder político que busca ascender en sus cargos pueda cumplir el periodo total para el cual fue escogido. O renuncia un año antes del fin de su periodo legal, o, adiós a una nueva elección. ¡Qué estupidez! Esas limitaciones no existen en ningún país exitoso del mundo.
Lo que Colombia requiere, lo que cualquier país requiere, es una constitución decente y eficiente sin promesas incumplibles. Una constitución escrita en manera comprensible por la ciudadanía. Y, una sin aspectos plenamente legislativos que no tienen por qué estar incluidos en una obra tan permanente como debe ser constitución. Una constitución real es algo extraordinario que solo debe tener cuatro funciones:
Primero, crear y delimitar las instituciones estatales. Es decir, las unidades geográficas y las instituciones gubernamentales como son la legislatura, el ejecutivo, la rama judicial, los procesos electorales, y los medios de control político, y, ademas, las instituciones responsables por la estricta interpretación constitucional y por resolver conflictos entre las diversas ramas del estado.
Segundo, toda constitución es inherentemente antidemocrática buscando impedir no solo el poder de la mayoría sino el poder de futuras generaciones. Todo supuesto derecho fundamental o humano es antidemocrático en ese aspecto. Pero antidemocrático no implica algo negativo o abusivo, ese aspecto es esencial para proteger la libertad, la autonomía personal y al bienestar y a la independencia de las minorías.
El tercer aspecto plenamente constitucional es el de establecer prioridades con respecto al ejercicio del poder, más que todo en temas presupuestales. La realidad de mucho de lo que se define como “derechos fundamentales o humanos” nada tiene que ver con el concepto de un “derecho”. Un derecho es inherente, nadie lo da, es eterno, no se puede condicionar. Entonces, por supuesto, hoy en día, ningún derecho existe ya que ninguno cumple con esos requisitos pero si existen o pueden existir prioridades. No podemos garantizar la paz, como promete nuestra Constitución, ni un medio ambiente sano, ni la educación, ni la salud, ni viviendas dignas, etc., pero una constitución si podría exigir que los primeros gastos estatales trataran con una función específica, luego, si hay suficiente dinero restante, con otra, y lo mismo hasta que se agota el dinero. Entonces, en vez de derechos incumplidos, tendríamos prioridades incondicionales delimitadas constitucionalmente.
El cuarto y último aspecto trata con su permanencia. Enmendarla debe ser, no solo difícil, sino que debe requerir de la misma formalidad con la cual se adoptó, y en ambos casos, eso debe, al final, incluir la aprobación directa del primer constituyente, del pueblo, o por plebiscito o por referendo (dependiendo en si hay más que una opción presentada). Y debe haber proceso dentro de la misma constitución no solo para su enmienda, sino para su remplazo total y eso, por medios no solamente convocados por el gobierno, o por una rama del gobierno, sino por iniciativa popular suficientemente amplia par no resultar en propuestas poco serias o poco apoyadas por el pueblo.
Esos cuatro aspectos y ningunos más tratan con temas que se deben incluir en nuestra carta magna, en nuestra carta política, en nuestra constitución. Lo que se incluye en una constitución se tiene que cumplir. Si no se cumple, entonces ahí no debía estar y si esta, se debe de eliminar.
Entonces, si vamos a superar todos los problemas antes mencionados: ¿que debe abordar una constitución decente y eficiente para Colombia? Pues hay modelos que debíamos investigar, pero no copiar. Lo que funciona en otras partes no necesariamente funcionaria aquí. Llegamos a donde estamos copiando conceptos constitucionales desde esa potencia del norte que tanto daño nos ha hecho, y copiados en forma incoherentemente descontextualizada ya que Colombia no es una federación y no aspira a ser un imperio.
Una república que si me parece que tiene un modelo admirable que nos podría, en parte, funcionar, es la de la República Irlandés. Ellos gozan de un modelo parlamentario pero no idéntico al inglés. El modelo de gobierno parlamentario es mucho más democrático que el presidencial y mucho más eficiente. Eso porque tanto la cámara baja del parlamento, la más importante aunque es denominada los comunes, y el ejecutivo son internamente ligados y cuando no están de acuerdo, en vez de congelarse la gobernación, hay nuevas elecciones para la cámara baja (y, por ende, el ejecutivo) y es el pueblo el que resuelve la crisis. El parlamento escoge el primer ministro, quien es el jefe de gobierno pero no el jefe de estado, y el parlamento y el primer ministro, conjuntamente, escogen los jefes de los diversos ministerios. La cámara alta, el senado, es muy innovadora ya que no es democrática, como es la cámara de los comunes, sino pluralista. Sus miembros no son elegidos popularmente sino por diferentes segmentos de la sociedad. Algunos son nombrados por el presidente (el jefe de estado, diferente siempre que el primer ministro), otros son elegidos por los sindicatos, otros por las universidades, otros por las cámaras de comercio, etc. Y el presidente es elegido popularmente siendo la única persona elegida a nivel nacional. El presidente es encargado más que todo con control político, con las fuerzas armadas y con temas diplomáticos. Eso permite gobernanza por un tiempo indeterminado, un tiempo que podría ser o muy largo o muy corto, dependiendo en la voluntad popular. El periodo electoral constitucional es de cinco años, pero no hay límites sobre re-elección. Al mismo tiempo, podría ser más corto si el primer ministro pierde la confianza del parlamento o si el primer ministro, queriendo aumentar su respaldo en el parlamento, disuelve al parlamento y convoca elecciones tempranas.
Quizás el aspecto que más admiro del sistema estatal de la Republica Irlandesa es el electoral. Como en Colombia, las elecciones a los comunes se basan en listas, pero las listas no se conforman por los partidos sino por los electores en forma individual. Por ejemplo, en el sistema colombiano actual, el Departamento de Caldas es representado en la Cámara de Representantes por cinco personas. Pero los electores solo pueden votar por una y, al votar por esa, su partido y todos sus otros candidatos reciben el apoyo. En la Republica Irlandesa, cada ciudadano tendría cinco votos, y los colocaría en orden de prioridad sin consideración de diferencias partidistas, creando así su propia lista. Así se mantiene el concepto de proporcionalidad entre los diversos grupos de candidatos, sean por partido o independientes, pero no se obliga a que el voto sea limitado a un partido. Ademas, una vez elegidos, los parlamentarios votan su conciencia y no pueden ser destituidos por diferencias entre ellos y sus partidos.
Entonces, tanto la derecha representada por los seguidores del expresidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez y la izquierda representada por el actual presidente de Colombia, Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego, en parte, tenían la razon cuando decían que Colombia necesitaba un nuevo constituyente constitucional, pero ambos estaban equivocados cuando deseaban limitar los temas constitucionales a los cuales se limitaría esa convocatoria. Necesitamos iniciar de nuevo porque los cambios esenciales para lograr un país democrático, libertario, equitativo, justo y libre de corrupción e impunidad necesitan un sistema muy diferente al que tenemos y al que siempre hemos tenido. Un sistema en el cual son los individuos y no los partidos que gobiernan. Pero por esa razon, los que ahora dominan el poder, tanto los de derecha como los de centro, izquierda y los meramente pragmáticos están totalmente en desacuerdo con un nuevo constituyente ilimitado. Para ellos, su peor pesadilla es la devolución del poder al pueblo, en especial, si no logran dominar sus decisiones electorales por medio del temor, por medio de las mentiras, por medio de la manipulación o por medio de la corrupción.
Nuestra Constitución actual no es más que un rompecabezas conformado de montones de acuerdos políticos entre personas que buscaron beneficiarse personalmente y beneficiar a sus diversas agrupaciones politicoeconómicas y sociales. Un rompecabezas incoherente, uno lleno de contradicciones irresolubles. Por eso ha resultado imposible cumplir con sus numerosas hermosas promesas. Un cambio de vestido o un poquito de maquillaje no serán adecuados para reformarla.
Una Colombia ideal, una Colombia utópica en temas de su gobernanza es posible, una Colombia mucho más eficiente y realmente honesta. Una Colombia mucho más equitativa y justa. Y eso es, no solo posible, sino probable. Pero necesitamos desamarrarnos de los enlaces maquiavélicos con los cuales nuestros representantes nos enlazaron en 1991.
Guillermo Calvo Mahé es escritor, comentarista, analista político y académico residente en la República de Colombia. Aspira ser poeta y a veces se lo cree. Hasta el 2017 coordinaba los programas de Ciencia Política, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales y, entre las asignaturas que dictaba con relevancia a este artículo estaban Teoría Constitucional, Gobierno y sistemas políticos comparados, y, Derechos Humanos. En la actualidad, participa en entrevistas radiales y televisadas, foros, seminarios y congresos cívicos y edita y publica la revista virtual The Inannite Review disponible en Substack.com/. Tiene títulos académicos en ciencias políticas (del Citadel, la universidad militar de la Carolina del Sur), derecho (de la St. John’s University en la ciudad de Nueva York), estudios jurídicos internacionales (de la facultad posgrado de derecho de la New York University) y estudios posgrado de lingüística y traducción (del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de la Florida). Sin embargo, también es fascinado por la mitología, la religión, la física, la astronomía y las matemáticas, especialmente en lo relacionado con lo cuántico y la cosmogonía. Puede ser contactado en guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com y gran parte de su escritura está disponible a través de su blog en https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Zionists and the Holocaust, The One with a Capital H as Well as the One Taking Place Today
A disturbing reflection by Guillermo Calvo Mahé, April 30, 2024
This reflection is long overdue and deals with facts that have been in plain sight for a very long time but which have been obfuscated, distorting the terrible reality in which we find ourselves and thus, making real solutions to the problems we face unattainable. However, the horrible deliberate slaughter we are experiencing in the Middle East, specifically in Palestine (Hedges, 2024, Al Jazeera, 2017), has brought the issue treated in this reflection to the forefront and, if the phrase “never again” is ever to attain the meaning ascribed to it (primarily as a slogan) following the Holocaust, it is essential that the concepts involved be fully and accurately examined. The topic dealt with in this reflection deals with the sociopolitical phenomenon known as Zionism, a widely used term usually devoid of context which, to an extent, this reflection seeks to provide. Not as a mere academic exercise but as a wakeup call and an existential warning, especially to the Jewish community which has been and continues to be used and abused by Zionists for their own nefarious purposes.
Zionism was originally a positive and important defensive reaction to European antisemitism seeking to encourage persecuted Jews worldwide to unite to aggressively defend their rights to equality and eventually, to establish a special refuge under Jewish control (Eichler, 2013). Many places were considered, including Argentina, Brazil and Uganda but eventually, the Palestinian portion of the Ottoman Empire came to be especially coveted, although it had been inhabited for millennia by, among others, the descendants of Jews who had refused to leave Palestine despite Roman persecution, most of whom had first been forcibly converted to Christianity and then to Islam. Those descendants of the original Hebrew population form the core of today’s Palestinians, albeit intermixed with other nationalities and cultures including Arab migrants.
In its quest to wrest Palestine from its inhabitants (Al Jazeera, 2017), Zionism unfortunately morphed into a rabid subgroup within Judaism but which also included Christian fundamentalist. The latter, although inherently anti-Semitic, see the establishment of a dominant Jewish state in Palestine as a prerequisite for Armageddon and then, the second coming of their messiah (Lewis, 2021) whom they refer to as Jesus the Christ, appellations which that individual never used, his name probably having been Yeshua ben Yosef. Problematically, Zionists attempt to speak for all Jews despite being rejected and considered anathema by many (Glass, 1975) and, instead of reducing antisemitism, have increased it, in many cases actively promoting it in an effort to force recalcitrant Jews to come under their umbrella, especially with respect to securing a Jewish majority in Palestine (Dowty, 2008; Nicosia, 2008; Reinharz, 1985). Indeed, Zionist tactics and strategies have come to mimic those of the German Nazis during the second war to end all wars, an irony of epic proportions. In light of the foregoing, it is essential to understand that Zionism and Judaism are extremely far from synonymous.
Unintended consequences are not always bad things; sometimes they make us reexamine past assumptions and beliefs. That is certainly the case with respect to the current genocide perpetrated by Israeli Zionists against Palestinians in the quest for ethnic cleansing (Hedges, 2024; Borrows-Freedman, 2024) and the support of such atrocities by all the major participants in the second war to end all wars, both Allies and Axis powers. Atrocities involving Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing ongoing for over three quarters of a century (Al Jazeera (2017), in fact, since the end of the second war to end all wars, a war purportedly fought to eliminate state sponsored crimes of lesse humanidad, although, as in the case of most wars, the purported purpose was far from accurate.[1] In light of that reality, it is past time to conduct an objective review of just what happened during the build up to the second war to end all wars, what really happened during that war and what happened immediately following the war, in order to determine why it occurred, who was to blame and just how widespread the evil was. One question that has been asked but never answered with respect to that war’s immediate aftermath is why the atomic bombing of Japan was not considered genocide or the internment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps not considered a crime of lesse humanidad, such as the crimes with which leaders of the countries that lost that war were charged.[2]
The reality is that history has demonstrated that the Nuremburg trials and their Tokyo counterparts (Sellers, 2010; Buruma, 2023) were fraudulent travesties in large part orchestrated to divert attention from massively horrible war crimes committed by the victors, not just violations of human rights during the war but during the preceding centuries. It is therefore no surprise that their high sounding promotion and promises of a better, more just world have proven profoundly empty and that tens of millions died in vain, among them, twenty-seven million Russians, as well as the victims of the Holocaust. We celebrate the victims of that Holocaust, the one with the capital H, but dare not look into why it occurred or the role of Zionism in promoting it and turning Germany from a bastion of opportunity for Jews (Reinharz, 1985, chapters 3 and 4)[3], into their assassin, a question much more than just relevant in analyzing the nature of Zionism and its goals in light of the murderous nature of Zionism today (Rossinow, 2018), always noting that Zionism and Judaism are very far from synonymous. Indeed, during the first half of the twentieth century as it is today, Zionism is the prime promoter of antisemitism.
Very few people realize that during the first war to end all wars, the vast majority of Jews everywhere in the world were pro-German, including those in Germany, Russia and the United States, and that Zionists, betraying the majority of Jews everywhere, were tasked by the British with orchestrating the defeat of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria Hungary and Turkey) by goading the United States into entering the war on behalf of the Triple Entente (the United Kingdom, France and for a time Russia) in exchange for the land occupied for millennia by Palestinians (Cornelius, 2005; Stein, 1961). That was done and was the main reason that Germany, devastated in the post war “peace”, turned on its patriotic Jews, i.e., because Zionists claimed to have acted on behalf of Jews worldwide, without, of course, having the right to make that claim.
That such Zionists actions would lead to a massive increase in antisemitism was not only understood by Zionist leaders but was an important goal as they hoped that the extremely talented and productive Jewish community in Germany would be forced to immigrate to Palestine. That the costs of that massive and vituperous increase in antisemitism would be horrendous was irrelevant as, is the case of today’s genocide in Palestine, the ends, any ends at all, justified the means. However, German Jews were not as easy to manipulate as Zionists hoped so in 1933, well before the Holocaust, the one with the capital H, the World Zionist Organization, again acting in the name of all Jews, formally declared war on Germany, economic war to be sure, and organized a worldwide embargo on trade with Germany much as the United States has done this millennium with numerous countries, including Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and North Korea, and increasingly with Russia and China. The Zionist hope was that Germany would overreact and thus, that its Jewish population would either emigrate to Palestine voluntarily or be expelled. Zionists actually facilitated such emigration in collaboration with Adolf Hitler, on amicable terms, by negotiating what became known as the Transfer Agreement. All of the foregoing is clearly documented for anyone interested in the truth. See for example, “The Transfer Agreement and the Boycott Fever, 1933” (Walensky, 1987), a study published by someone with profound antizionist sentiments, to be sure, and thus attacked as unreliable, although, while its opinions and conclusions may be unsettling, even troubling to many, the facts are impeccable and are also documented by Jewish sources well-disposed towards Zionism (see Weiss, 1998).
The foregoing information is shared, not to justify the Holocaust, or to deny it, but to illustrate the nature of Zionism, an abomination to true Judaism, one willing to sacrifice anyone and anything in order to attain its delusional dreams of power and dominion. Domination not only over all Palestinians (or at least any that survived) but also of all Arabs and all Muslims, all in a sick parody of the Nazis final solution to the Jewish problem, the latter, a solution in large part crafted with the help of hypocritical Zionists themselves. Given that Zionists were willing to risk the death of six million Jews in order to appropriate the Palestinian homeland, their actions today putting the world at risk of nuclear holocaust ought not to shock or surprise us.
Most Zionists have always believed that genocide is an acceptable tool, taking the cue from the numerous instances in Hebrew history where it was used against their opponents, purportedly under divine command (Lemos, 2023). The examples are legion (most contained in the Torah) starting with the exodus from Egypt, the annihilation of Jericho, etc. Many have been cited by current Israeli leaders, including Israel’s prime minister, foreign minister and minister of defense as examples to follow with reference to the Palestinian people, more than 24,000 of whom, as of the date of this reflection (April 30, 2024), have been massacred by the Israeli Defense Forces, the vast majority of them defenseless women and children, many in obvious cold blood with the location of mass graves now a normal occurrence. Events celebrated in festive dancing and songs not only by Israeli soldiers, but more disturbingly, by Israeli children.
The so-called law of unintended consequences all too frequently results in terrible disasters and one might take the position that the horrible experiences involving antisemitism during the last century involved that phenomenon, but that would be a mistake. The consequences of Zionism were foreseen, intentional and lasting, impacting millions of people every day. The crux of this reflection is that today’s Zionist conduct, to the detriment of Jewish interests as well as to that of Zionism’s opponents, is not new. And perhaps, as an aside, to note how ironic it is that the three branches of the Abrahamic religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam seem to have adopted the fratricide of Abel by Cain as their guiding principle.
A reading of the sources and suggested readings below makes the foregoing absolutely clear and it is the author’s hope that readers, disturbed by what is alleged in this reflection, will read, digest and analyze them. Many are available on line. The author has reached the conclusion that with the help of Zionists leaders, millions of Jews were the victims of genocide during the first half of the twentieth century. Readers may reach other conclusions. Nonetheless, it seems ironically clear that Zionism, which was a reaction to the crimes against many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Jews, the victims of antisemitism throughout Europe during the past two millennia, have used the promotion of antisemitism as the most successful tool in their arsenal. An arsenal not really meant to protect the Jewish people but to consolidate power among a select group within Judaism, to steal their neighbor’s land, and to murder millions directly and indirectly through manipulation of Zionist allies in the United States and ironically, in Europe. Europe, where antisemitism was prevalent for millennia while the Islamic world, including Palestine, was the only place where Jews, as people of the book, were provided refuge and a modicum of opportunity.
Lemos, T.M. (2023): “Chapter 6, Genocide in Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Sources”, pp. 185 – 208, The Cambridge World History of Genocide, Part II – The Ancient World; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[1] The American Civil War is an obvious example. The claim that it was fought to eliminate the scourge of African slavery is obviously untrue, witness President Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address and the fact that slavery continued in numerous Union states throughout that war, but continues to be taught and stressed as a fact. In truth, Abraham Lincoln was a rabid racist who felt Africans were inferior, should never attain political rights in the United States and indeed, should all be shipped out of its jurisdiction, preferably to Liberia or Panama, as he felt that Africans and whites could never, and should never, live together. See, e.g., Adams, 2000.
[2] Those objectives are critical but beyond the scope of this reflection and indeed, as it has been for over three quarters of a century, much of the required research seems impossible given existing legal prohibitions on research and expression, and the relentless classification of essential information as top secret. One wonders why? But even if the information were readily available, the required report would be beyond the scope of even detailed treatise, requiring the free exchange of diverse opinions to untangle the incredible web deliberately woven to obfuscate the truth we need to know. Thus, of course, the scope of this brief reflection is much more limited, but perhaps, nonetheless essential.
[3] Most Russian and German Jews supported the Germans, as did much of the largely anti-British Irish. Indeed, the other principle Central Power, the Ottoman Empire was also supported by most of the Jews and indeed, both David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Tzvi volunteered for the Turkish Army and, when they were rejected, moved to the US and tried to recruit Jews to set up a Jewish unit in the Turkish army, see Teveth, 1985, pp. 25, 26.
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com, an intermittent commentator on radio and television, and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
To an objective political observer, admittedly an endangered species as, among other things, he or she would need to have been either politically neutral or supportive of political movements with no chance of attaining or sharing in political power, January 6, 2021 was a reaction against a series of real insurrections that began more than four years earlier, insurrections which began during early November of 2016 when the leadership of the Democratic Party orchestrated a slow motion coup. A coup orchestrated in conjunction with most of the corporate media, the outgoing Obama administration, a large portion of the federal bureaucracy (especially the intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice), a significant portion of the judiciary at both state and federal levels and traditionalist members of the Republican Party (who vehemently opposed their party’s candidate). The insurrection, in large part involved a quest for autocratic power by political professionals tied to the military-industrial-intelligence complex but included many decent citizens who were terrified of the president-elect, both because of the successful media campaign against him as well as because of his “shoot-himself-in-the foot pomposity, belligerence and immaturity.
The insurrection was clear and obvious on January 20, 2017, inauguration day, when massive demonstrations against the new president were held in diverse parts of the country but especially in the capital, Washington, D.C., seeking to disorder the inauguration where the “protestors” swore to do everything in their power to disrupt the new administration, asserting that the new president was not their president. Unlike the events of January 6, 2021, those efforts were carefully coordinated, orchestrated, funded and organized with former attorney general Eric Holder as the point person. Mr. Holder had been charged by the outgoing president, Barak Obama, to lead a “civic” organization purportedly engaged in coordinating large scale, full time activities to “promote democracy”. As important as the Holder led organization was the attack on the new president launched by the Democratic Party in Congress and through the bureaucracy alleging that Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2016 presidential election had been due to illegal foreign interference by the Russian Federation. In the federal bureaucracy, the insurrection was stimulated through a series of continuing leaks of both classified information and rumors, most of which lacked serious merit. Finally, concurrently with the foregoing, an ongoing series of nationwide violent disturbances, including takeovers of government property were coordinated with the assistance of local elected officials, purportedly in protest of police abuse of power resulting in the deaths of a number of people who were apparently, but not always, involved in illegal activities.
Supporters of the newly elected president watched all of the foregoing in dismay, protesting the lack of related enforcement of applicable laws and, concurrently, the whole country was put through the spectacle in Congress and in the Justice Department referred to as Russiagate. The new president was accused of violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution because his long established businesses continued to operate and a number of his supporters were promptly indicted by a hostile Department of Justice as unregistered foreign agents under rules that apparently did not apply to his political opponents. They still don’t. Nor, apparently, does the emoluments clause.
During the 2020 electoral cycle, as evidenced in information that became public when Elon Musk acquired Twitter, all the major social media platforms, major portions of the federal bureaucracy (especially the intelligence agencies and Department of Justice), all conspired to obfuscate evidence unfavorable to the incumbent’s opponent in the presidential election and to promote disinformation unfavorable to the incumbent, as well as to deprive the incumbent of access to most major media, social as well as corporate. In addition, purportedly based on measures required to avoid the consequences of the Covid 19 pandemic, most states controlled by Democratic Party affiliated governors relaxed restrictions designed to avoid electoral fraud by expanding access to both receipt and return of electoral ballots through mass mailing without required voter requests, and enabling their return, not by voters but by third parties, something anathema worldwide in states that seek to promote electoral integrity and avoid a market in votes.
The result of the foregoing was that an important plurality of the electorate lost confidence in the electoral results, especially when a barrage of mail-in ballots, many harvested by third parties and subject to discrepancies involving dates and signature verification, arrived at the last instant changing the anticipated electoral results. The foregoing seemed especially egregious in elections in the State of Georgia were many residents of foreign states were encouraged to move their voting domicile to Georgia in order to permit them to vote there. While problematic the issue became acute when a runoff was required in elections to the Senate and it was suspected that voters who had already cast ballots in other states, moved their voting domicile and were allegedly permitted to vote in the second round of the elections, although they’d not been registered in the first round. Numerous complaints of voting irregularities and improprieties were lodged all over the country but, in stark contrast to the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 elections, the vast majority of such complaints were dismissed on procedural grounds and few were in fact investigated, exacerbating the suspicion that the election had been “rigged”.
On January 6, 2021, Donald Trump was still president of the United States and called for massive but peaceful protests, much the way the Democratic Party did in 2017, but also, to assure that protests did not get out of line, he urged that federal troops be deployed to protect the Capitol, an offer rejected by the Democratic Party leaders who controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the United States infiltration of political and civic movements by local, state and federal agents has become normal and the groups that organized the proposed protests for January 6 were thoroughly infiltrated, apparently not only by agents charged with gathering intelligence, but by agents provocateur who apparently participated in encouraging some of the protesters to invade the Capitol grounds in order to delay certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election by the Democratic Party controlled Senate while a member of the Republican Party still served as that bodies presiding officer. Apparently, some hoped that the vice president would order an investigation of the claims of electoral fraud and delay the certification but in that, they were very mistaken. A small group broke off from the massive protests and apparently, in many cases with the assistance of Capitol police, invaded the Capitol seeking to occupy it. Something not common but not unheard of either in other protests during the past century. To many of them, the Capitol represented the most appropriate site to engage in political protest, but some of them crossed the line and engaged in ludicrous activities as though they were souvenir shopping or engaging in photo sessions. There was some violence but the only serious violence was that taken by federal agents and police against the trespassers, in one case, involving what appeared to be the type of abusive taking of life which had led to the prior year’s Black Lives Matter protests. It is interesting to reflect on the purported terror the trespassers caused among the members of Congress present, members from both parties, members despised by most of the electorate with an approval rating at the time of only 20%. That approval rating is now even lower. Perhaps they have good cause to fear the electorate which, however, while disapproving heartily of Congress as a whole, keeps reelecting the same people in their own districts.
The consequences of the protests and trespass on January 6, 2021 were completely different than the reactions to myriad protests during the prior four years, many of which involved violence and takeover of government property on a long term basis, but few if any charges or prosecutions. Instead of investigating the allegations of electoral irregularities which led to the protests concerning the results of the 2020 elections, many of the protestors as well as the trespassers were charged with serious crimes, with many prosecuted, found guilty and, if they dared to fight the charges, sentenced to lengthy periods of incarceration. The fact that they honestly believed they were performing their duty to protect the Constitution was, despite constitutional guarantees and especially the provisions of the Declaration of Independence, deemed irrelevant. As was the comparison with the activities of the four prior years.
The last three years have done nothing to diminish the absence of faith in the legitimacy of the electoral system. Indeed, flagrant attempts to defeat democratic (small “d”) support for the ex-president have increased, with the full weight of the judicial system at both the state and federal level, both the penal and civil systems, weaponized to prevent the former president, who leads all the presidential polls, from returning to power; to prevent him from even appearing on presidential ballots. That, of course, reinforces rather than diminishes the certainty among those who believe that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen”, that they were right, and that those involved in the disturbances at the Capitol three years ago were brave patriots fighting to preserve, rather than to overthrow democracy.
Many believe (with cause) that the electoral systems in purported democracies all over the world are unreliable, and that includes many in the United States. They may well be right. They are probably right. Even if votes are actually counted accurately, as to which there is now serious doubt, manipulation by the corporate media, social media, the bureaucracy and the judicial system has become fairly obvious. That is a systemic problem in a system where selection of members of the judiciary is a thoroughly politicized process and where self-serving billionaires not only control all media, but own it, and have the technological tools to completely manipulate it.
The issue of a downward spiral involving geese and ganders is now very concerning. If Mr. Trump regains power, what happens next? The bureaucracy is so thoroughly entrenched, as is the judiciary, that attempts to reform them would require massive dismissals, something that the courts could easily obstruct for at least four years. Calling for a new constitutional convention may be an answer, but the specter of declaration of a state of insurrection, martial law and the emergence of a permanent, formal dictatorship seems all too likely. The former may be the case regardless of who wins given that another election deemed stolen may well lead to a real insurrection, and as Abraham Lincoln taught us, the only way to deal with real insurrections is through an autocratic dictatorship. Not that we’re all that far from such a situation now.
Donald Trump is not the cause of the foregoing problems, although he may well be a catalyst. It is hard to understand, given his personality and mannerisms, how so many voters support him, but they do. And, as in the case of so many who vote for Democratic Party candidates although they loath them and their policies, many Trump supporters support him, I strongly suspect, because they loath the party of perpetual war, ever increasing defense and intelligence budgets, foreign intervention and polarizing woke policies, the Democratic Party. And because in both cases, although other options exist (in this electoral cycle, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Jill Stein and Cornel West come to mind), they are frozen out of the quest for power by the corporate media and the duopolous dictatorship under which we’ve lived all of our lives.
As an aside, one wonders how those who celebrate the 4th of July can feel so opposed to political insurrections by citizens who honestly believe in the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence celebrated on such date. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, believed that such reactions were healthy and ought to take place at least every twenty years. While to me that seems extreme, given our current polarization and the extent to which our civil and political liberties are being curtailed, I acknowledge that populist reactions from both the left and right wings of the political spectrum appear to have reached a boiling point. Given this sad state of affairs, one obvious to those of us who live abroad but apparently invisible to too many of those who live in the United States, the future certainly bodes ill for the United States, but as far as most of the world is concerned, that may not be a bad thing.
Things on which to reflect, seven plus years after the start of the successful Democratic Party insurrection of 2017. _______
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com, a commentator on Radio Guasca FM, and an occasional contributor to the regional magazine, el Observador. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Armed Palestinian resisters to Israeli occupation and imprisonment without trial of thousands and thousands of their brethren have shocked the “Western” world by breaking out of the Gaza Ghetto and daring to attack Israel, sort of like armed Jewish resisters once attacked Nazis in the Warsaw “ghetto”. They dared to take prisoners to exchange for the thousands of Palestinians held without trial by the Israeli occupiers, the former but not the latter considered anathema. After all, only Israelis have prisoners, those captured by Hamas are hostages. As in the first war to end all wars, “Western” media has quickly demonized those it disdains, claiming, without evidence, all sorts of atrocities and brutalities involving women and infants. Then, it was the “Huns” dining on babies; now it is Hamas purportedly raping women and beheading infants. While atrocities are probable (the thirst for revenge tends to lead to inhumane reactions), these particular reports, like those from the first war to end all wars, are highly improbable or at least, extremely exaggerated. On the other hand, the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children by the Israelis are well documented and credible. But “that” was collateral damage so it doesn’t count. And after all, the roughly forty to one ratio of Israeli to Palestinian casualties must be maintained, the score is important in this particular game.
The consequences of the Hamas led breakout were predictable, as predictable as reprisals by the Nazis during the second war to end all wars. Collective punishment of innocent Palestinians, regardless of what “International law” prohibits or what the Nuremberg tribunals decided, is “necessary”. And anyway, that’s not too much different than what has been happening every day, even before Hamas unexpectedly acted. Hunting Palestinians has become similar to the extermination of the Buffalo by “sportsmen” in the United States during the nineteenth century. Or to extermination of vermin whenever we fumigate for pests who have “invaded” our homes. After all, as a prominent Israeli leader recently exclaimed, “Palestinians are subhuman animals”.
For three quarters of a century, European invaders have subjected the Palestinian people to the most brutal form of colonialist exploitation imaginable. Exploitation coupled with a campaign of gradual genocide and constant pillaging and plundering. It was necessary. Unfortunately. Zionists wanted the homes Palestinians had lived in for millennia, and modern Israel is beautiful and needs “lebensraum”. And six million Jews were killed by the Nazis, which somehow justifies the annihilation of Palestinians.
The ex post facto rules applied to the losers in the second war to end all wars purportedly established an international legal structure that forbade the foregoing. Instead, it continues unabated with the victims labeled “terrorists” and the victimizers treated as victims by a jaded and dishonest “press”. In France and Germany, indicia of support for Palestinian rights is now officially illegal; elsewhere in the so called West, it is “unofficially” censored, the probable fate of this article.
Hypocrisy and deception “uber alles” are prevalent in everything, but especially in intercultural relations, both domestic and international. Perhaps though, that’s not a modern phenomenon. As I delve more and more deeply into history, it seems mined with little more than lies, obvious and verifiable falsehoods which make those aspects of history we’re forbidden from studying, like the causes and consequences of the second war to end all wars, very, very suspect. Just how different were the Nazis (and perhaps the “allies” as well) from today’s Zionists in Palestine or the United States almost everywhere. The perception from the Global South with reference to the foregoing seems very different from that among the populace in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union. But then, there is seemingly a disconnect between the populations of the latter and their governments, with those purportedly “democratic” governments disdainful of the will and opinions of those they rule. As Abraham Lincoln, that consummate politician reputedly once said, “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. Left unsaid, perhaps, was the corollary: “But you can at least try.”
I and those of my generation in the United States were once taught that restraints on liberty, restrains on the right to opine and to deliberate, where characteristics of totalitarian states, especially states such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Soviet allies, and that the second war to end all wars was fought to preserve our rights and freedoms, but today, the reverse seems true. Perhaps it always has been. The normative environment concerning opinions involving the current situation in the Middle East in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians it enslaves is illustrative, as is the situation with the conflict between the Ukraine and the Russian Federation. In each case, “Western” populations are exposed consistently to a barrage of verifiably false information, but pointing out its fallacies is, “verboten”, verboten not only socially but legally. And protests, the fundamental right of citizens in a free society, are also now “out of bounds”.
It is ironic that many Palestinians are descendants of Jews who refused to participate in the diaspora following the Jewish revolt against Imperial Rome, instead converting over the centuries to Christianity and Islam in order to remain in their homeland, while most of the Zionists who have stolen that homeland are descendants of converts to Judaism over the centuries who intermarried with the Jews who left. It is also ironic that, but for the tolerance of Islam for Judaism during the millennium following Islam’s founding, there might well be no Jews at all today. But those inconvenient truths are papered over. Papered over with silence at best and outright deception at worst. The past is irrelevant to Zionists and their apologist unless it’s convenient, like remembrance of Nazi atrocities. The Nazis, of course, where not Muslims, but that makes no difference. Their atrocities are now used to justify the similar atrocities of Israeli Zionists against the Palestinian people. As in the Holocaust, the murder of women, children, the aged and infirm are necessary in order to implement a final solution to an inconvenient problem, and as in the former case, the “Western” world stands by with eyes tightly shut, not only rationalizing its inaction, but this time, making genocide viable (albeit better hidden behind a curtain of better managed public relations).
It is to the credit of the best ethical and moral standards of Judaism that many Jews stand among the most vocal critics of the foregoing while fundamentalist Christians in large numbers have decided that acceleration of “the end times” and the return of Yeshua the Nazarene to lead them to paradise justifies all such atrocities. Incoherence rules, as it seemingly always has. And what passes for history will likely clean the mess up, will package it in tidy narratives full of quotes and citations to what passes for journalism.
“Never again” is an empty slogan and the rulings of the Nuremberg tribunals following the second war to end all wars are hollow. Genocide is, in fact, celebrated annually during Chanukah (the exterminations of the Canaanite residents of Jericho) and Passover (the massacre of the first born of Egypt). Of course, genocide and ethnic cleansing are not an exclusively Israeli phenomenon. They are the hallmark of European colonialism, perpetuated against indigenous populations in the Americas, Africa, the Far East, Oceania and elsewhere.
Still, one wonders how the current Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing will be celebrated in the future, … and by whom. _______
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com, a commentator on Radio Guasca FM, and an occasional contributor to the regional magazine, el Observador. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Guillermo Calvo Mahé 