Clinton doesn't have a principled objection to money's corruption of politics. She objects (rhetorically) when it's convenient to do so. The same goes for free trade, gay marriage, criminal justice, etc. She simply doesn't come across as trustworthy. And it's no wonder why.
Thus we get what Lawrence Lessig pointed out when being interviewed by Bill Moyers:
Take note of the line in bold font: "I mean, we have the data to show this now. There was a Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Ben Page. The largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government. And what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter cares about. And when they look at the economic elite, you know, as the percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. As the organized interests care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. If we can go from zero percent of the average voters caring about something to 100 percent and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. And when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line, that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. Our democracy is flat lined. Because when you can show clearly there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about, only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about, you've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore."
It's why Robert Jensen wrote, "No matter who votes in elections, powerful unelected forces—the captains of industry and finance—set the parameters of political action. Voting matters, but it matters far less than most people believe, or want to believe. This raises the impolite question of whether democracy and capitalism are compatible. Is political equality possible amid widening economic inequality? Can power be distributed when wealth is concentrated? These questions remain unspeakable in mainstream political circles, even though the economic inequality continues to widen and the distorting effects of concentrated wealth are more evident than ever. The limited successes of the Occupy movement nudged this into view, but this impolite question must be central in our conversations, raised without sectarian rhetoric and with a clearer analysis of the foundational nature of the problem."
It's why Sanders said, "...no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country. They will not be able to succeed because the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them. That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about electing Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country."
We've legalized bribery. Obama's 2nd biggest 'donor' in 2008 was Goldman Sachs, and a Goldman Sachs employee became Treasury Secretary. Surprise, surprise. And there's a revolving door between regulators and the regulated. The foxes are watching the hen house.
Even campaigns themselves have taken to marketing consumer products that have nothing to do with the candidate or issues. And several presidential campaigns have won Ad Age's Marketer of the Year Award (competing against Apple, Coca Cola, etc.). When a campaign talks about altering the candidate's brand, that's not a joke--it's not an Onion article. It's just modern day politics. "Debates," like the infotainment industry, are a complete joke.
That's the reality we're up against and have to fight to change.
As I wrote elsewhere, I've never felt like Sanders has a chance of being nominated and I don't think that's what his campaign is really all about. His campaign is, in his own words, "about creating a grassroots political movement in this country." So that one day we might have a POTUS who truly does represent the will of the people. And not a lesser evil with strong ties to seedy corporations and firms (like Beacon Global Strategies, Corrections Corporation of America, Monsanto, Burson-Marsteller, etc.). Because, as we know from numerous surveys, when you set aside that election results are driven by perception and money (and the Cult of Personality) and that most don't really follow politics very closely, large majorities - when asked directly how they feel about various issues - share the same political philosophy as Sanders. This is why it's so meaningless to say something like, "Most Democrats like both Clinton and Sanders about equally." Or something like the inevitable, "Clinton won, so obviously most Democrats disagree with Sanders supporters." The fact is most voters have been manipulated to the extreme, or simply don't pay close attention to politics. Millions of registered voters can't even name the current Vice President. Neoliberalism has been the dominant ideology of the last 35+ years, yet how many do you suppose have a clue what neoliberalism is or about Thatcher's TINA (There Is No Alternative) speech? How many are familiar with The Powell Memorandum? Most simply don't have the inclination to concern themselves with such things, not when there's a boob tube beckoning. And after a hard day of being a wage slave, who can blame 'em?
= new reply since forum marked as read
