HILLARY IS OBAMA WITH LIPSTICK
The Hillary Clinton candidacy represents a lose-lose situation for us.
If she becomes president, she will be Obama with lipstick. (Isn’t it time for us to face up to the fact that Obama has more in common with Reagan than with Roosevelt?). She will rule from the same ivory tower from which Obama peers down at us, and continue to cavort with billionaires and kings whose only agenda will be to continue to enrich themselves at our expense.
On the other hand, she may lose to a republican (I believe that she will be a weak candidate and may indeed lose, but that is another essay), which would be worse for us. If she loses, it would mean that Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul or some other robotic, eager purveyor of bigotry, greed, ignorance, and hatred would rule (I intentionally use the word rule. Our presidents no longer govern, they rule). Nuclear war would become a real possibility. Even the mention of climate change would become illegal (as it now is in Florida and other republican-ruled states). Life as we know it could very well end.
Enter Bernie Sanders.
The neoliberal reaction to his candidacy is visceral. “He unelectable,” they say. “America is still fairly anti-Semitic. He is also a socialist; socialists do not stand a chance in capitalist America. He will lose.”
They fear that his candidacy would hand the election over to the republican party on a gold platter; a party fueled by hatred – hatred of Moslems, socialists, immigrants, unwed mothers, free thinkers, atheists, agnostics, unions, Black people, Hispanic people, the poor, the Chinese, Putin, Castro, Cuba, feminists, gays, Pope Francis… whatever works to get us to look the other way so they can pick our pockets.
On the other hand, republican “pudits (lol)” see Sanders’ candidacy as opportunity. They realize that if he runs as an independent, he splits the vote, and hands them the election. If he runs as a democrat, his socialism would make him a very easy target for the filthy smear tactics, lies, trash-talk, and fear mongering for which the republican machine is famous.
Very scary thought indeed.
We lost the Senate to these extremists. We lost the House. They took the Supreme Court. We can’t afford to lose the White House.
On the other hand, Hillary is no cause for great hope.
Her positions on issues such as taxing the rich, secret trade agreements, waging endless war, violating of civil liberties, use of assassinations, mass surveillance, militarization of police, or regulating banks, Wall Street, and big pharma are identical to those of republicans.
The fact of the matter is that both parties pretend to have their differences but are both controlled by a small group of autocrats who support all the above abominations.
It wasn’t always this way. What changed?
Money has changed the two-party system into an almost one-party system. Aside from the hate issues (which they like to call wedge issues but would be better named manipulative issues because both parties use them only to manipulate voters) real differentiating agendas do not exist. The main difference between what we call democracy in America (with its fake two-party system, its faux news, and its fake president) and fascism is that fascism is more honest when it comes to endorsing a one-party system, propaganda, and a ruler.
Yet our rulers continue to pay homage to democracy.
Can we call a system a democracy when most of its citizens don’t vote, in which most of its rulers believe in rule by secret tribunals and select committees instead of rule by law? If we gave up the façade and went over to a one-party system, and stopped wasting billions on fake elections, would anyone notice?
Can we change or are we doomed?
There is Bernie. He may break with the two-party system. If he does, it would create a dilemma for us. Should we split with the Democrats and vote for him, thereby possibly insuring victory for the self-described dark side (I’m thinking Dick Cheney)?
To make this painful decision, I think we should take the advice of Noam Chomsky when asked for whom he would vote – Al Gore or Ralph Nader in a coming election. Chomsky replied (I paraphrase): If I lived in a state like California where the polls give no chance to Republicans, I would vote for Nader. But if I lived in a swing state like Iowa or Florida, then I would have to hold my nose and vote for Gore. There is just too much at stake.
Since I live in a solid blue state, my choice would be easy: I would vote for Sanders.