Reprint of a Disqus comment on the Mother Jones article calling Taibbi "Suprisingly weak":
In Frederick Douglass' autobiography, he describes that the slaves
would argue over whose master could beat up the other, whose was richer.
"To be a poor man's slave," he said "was a disgrace indeed." The slave
knows he is being mistreated, but cannot but help but assume some
graciousness of his master is attributable to himself. This is true of
US politics still. So ask Bernie supporters if they support him because
he is what they want to see in themselves, or because he is going to get
things done? And same to Clinton.
Having been disappointed by
Obama, and betrayed by Rahm Emanuel and his frenemy Bruce Rauner, I
cannot help but worry what a fourth civil servant connected to
Goldman Sachs will have in store for this country.
I agree that
what's possible is not well understood, nor can it be, but shouting down
a surging wave of left-wing revolt is a bad thing for the party, not
the least if there's a chance we may have to articulate such positions
against an anti-establishment attack from the right. Authenticity will
win this election, and Obama is apparently blind to that. We don't have
to be. When asked whom he would appoint as an advisor, Sanders has said
he would look to Elizabeth Warren, a brave voice of dissent toward the
banking powers. The way Clinton operates her politics are very in line
with how elites function, and is not positioned well to counter the
right. Not only has Clinton not disclosed her speeches to Goldman Sachs,
it is a sure bet she will hire some bankers to consult on her economic
policy as Obama did.
And while overturning Citizen's United may
not be in the cards, surely even the symbolic action of the American
public putting in a president that is resistant to such influence would
be a meaningful, measurable, form of resistance.
Let's take a more
hard-headed view and assume absolutely no laws will get passed in the
next 4 years. That *only* leaves military policy. Do you want it in the
hands of someone who cites the unemployment rate of Gaza or recently
presided over military intervention on the behalf of the "young people"
in the Middle East, that always seems to end up with Saudi puppets in
power?
Read the book "America's 60 Families" by Ferdinand
Lundberg. He describes how the wealthy use private foundations to
experiment with new ways to manage the population. The corruption is not
only direct quid-pro-quo, but a baseline assumption of support. In the
back of your mind, you know who pays your bills and is holding a job for
you in retirement. And that explains why in every debate, when Sanders
says that the wealthy are not pulling their weight in this country,
Clinton is absolutely incensed. Not because she is wealthy, nor hateful
of the underclass, but because he is threatening her ability to position
herself at the top of the elite.
Clinton does not simply get off
the hook for Iraq because it was in the past, and darn it if she wasn't
on the wrong side of that issue. She was on the wrong side *of the
country* which protested the war! (as a side note, how in the heck did a
radical evangelical with a C average talk Clinton into anything?) This
is a theme that runs through her entire political history. In her book
Living History (page 248) Clinton misstates the social culture of the
time on health care. A series of CBS polls found that starting in 1990,
the majority of Americans favored a national health care system.
Clinton's take on this is that the "vast majority" opposed national
health care because they would have to "give up benefits and medical
choices." It's true that a massive lobbying campaign ultimately drove
down public support for *her* particular bill, but she did not try to
organize a mass movement to get it passed, and that was its failing.
A
recent example was the flub that Nancy Reagan was in any way supportive
in the AIDS crisis. Of course, credit to her for apologizing, but
what's becoming clear is that Clinton buys into this myth that powerful
people are noble, and the rest of us are just, well, "people." This
sentiment was actually articulated by her husband in a televised
interview, that people need a consciousness that's "way up here" with
him. In fact, Clinton herself forgot that Sanders shared a stage with
her as she spoke for reform. Her campaign manager reminded us that he
was standing in the back, apparently where he belongs.
