Tuesday, May 3, 2016

For me, it is Sanders or no one in November

One notices that after the past three primary weeks, the media is now acting as if it is all over for Bernie Sanders. Despite its best efforts to clear the path for Hillary Clinton, as in 2008 the media badly miscalculated the level of antipathy that true progressives have for Clinton, whose career of corruption obviously defines her someone who believes in nothing but herself. But marginalizing Sanders and deriding his message (when it would have been accused of racism and alienated black voters against Clinton—which she managed to do all by herself—had it done so to Barak Obama in 2008), appears to have managed to do just enough.

 It is clear that Clinton is felt to be “owed” the presidency because many Democrats feel (or are made to do so by gender activists and the media) “guilty” of “betrayal” for supporting Obama in 2008. But the weakness of Clinton was just as apparent this year as it was then; Clinton comes off as someone who acts with a sense of “entitlement,” saying anything and nothing at the same time. We are told of her “experience” and “accomplishments,” yet of the former it is fair to ask if she is more “experienced” in corruption—and in the latter, her principle “accomplishments” tend to be the number of “gates” and scandals she has been accused in. 

If a young, charismatic candidate with a history of strongly-held progressive views had run against her, the result would be the same as in 2008, attracting both Sanders independents and first-time voters, voters less “doubtful” about “electability” issues, and adding a larger share of the black vote. Instead, many white voters bought into the media shibboleth about Sanders’ “electability,” and black voters ignored both Sanders and Clinton’s records, preferring to see on one hand just some old white man who doesn’t “understand” them, and an old woman who they choose to believe is “empathetic,” but forgetting that she betrayed them in the past, and will likely do so in the future. 

But I disagree that it is all over for anyone outraged that that the “herd” has presented the choice of a blustering bigot and a corrupt, unethical liar. It is still possible that if the FBI releases (or is allowed to release) its investigation into Clinton’s email server illegalities before the Democratic convention, and recommends criminal charges against Clinton—offering more “immediate” proof of Clinton’s corrupt nature—there could be a significant switch in her delegate count. However, given past treatment of Clinton as being above the law that others go to prison for doing much less, I have little expectation of this; no doubt behind the scenes the Clintons are putting significant pressure on the Obama administration, which we can see in the Attorney General’s craven hypocrisy when pressed on the administration’s non-action on the issue. And knowing Clinton, her megalomania would bring out her pathological denial side against any charge.

Voters could then choose to boycott both tickets—perhaps the only viable option at this point. No one with any principles or self-respect should feel that “need” to vote for the “lesser” of two evils, and show their anger by making this November’s presidential vote tally the lowest by percentage in history. 

But there is another option: vote for a third candidate. That candidate could still be Sanders, Pro-Clinton media outlets still hypocritically refer to his "yawning gap" in delegates, but if he wins California and his pledged delegate count reaches at least 80 percent of Clinton’s (not counting “super-delegates” who clearly have no feel for the pulse of the country), he could claim to be the most viable alternative for those disgusted with the “choice” forced on them b the "herd." Those still intrigued with Sanders’ promise to “shake-up” the “system” to the benefit of ordinary people over the powerful and corrupt.

Many people find that an attractive alternative because most other politicians have sold their souls to corporate America (who outrageously have the Constitutional rights of any “person,” according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision) while differentiating themselves almost exclusively on increasingly meaningless “cultural” issues. That includes Donald Trump, the personification of Corporate America, and Clinton, who claims she is “fighting for us” while putting Wall Street and fossil-fuel industry millions into her personal pocket for reasons she doesn’t have the integrity to reveal. 

Remember that Obama did not promise to “shake up” the system; he promised to set a tone of cooperation with Congressional Republicans—exactly the opposite which occurred in reality. That was what “change” meant for Obama, quite different than what “progressives” expected from him, for the mere fact he was black. Clinton’s “reality” promises no more, and perhaps even less. Trump, on the other hand, offends with his unstable rhetoric that incites the worst impulses in those of bigoted and racist nature—especially those who feel Trump gives them “justification” for acting out their “frustrations” in a violent manner, even before television news cameras.

For me, it has always been a choice between Sanders and no one. Voters should still have that choice in November.

No comments:

Post a Comment