Home | About | Donate

Don't Expect Clinton, GOP Candidates to Work for Social Justice


Don't Expect Clinton, GOP Candidates to Work for Social Justice

Gary Olson

My car's bumper sticker reads "I'm ready for Oligarchy: the choice is clear. There is none." It's a truism that under our system, no one can be nominated or can win the presidency who isn't a shill for the billionaire class. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, will campaign as a populist in the primaries as Wall Street winks and says, "We totally understand the charade you need to perform to attain the White House. We'll even act annoyed if that helps." In the general election, she will move to the center and, after her likely coronation, govern from the right.


Excellent and honest assessment, Dr. Olson.

"Previous female secretaries of state, including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice demonstrate that women who've internalized "American exceptionalism" behave just as reprehensibly as any male."

I appreciate how you framed this comment since instead of the generic--blame human nature or related presumption that women behave exactly as men do--you properly defined the issue.

Those allowed into today's halls of power not only bow to American Exceptionalism, they have the morality of little Eichmanns. It would seem that all are onboard with the further rapacious plunder of this planet's minerals and energy resources. They are onboard with dangerous arms trafficking and seem to take delight in the spread of wars along with the inevitable "terrorism" that results when lands are bludgeoned and their indigenous populations left with badly damaged infrastructure and in some cases, poisoned fields and waterways.

The type of entity that's taken control of not just the U.S. govt., but also that of other "advanced" nations is one that IS deferential to bankers--the 1%, and appears to have embraced both a model of domination over nature and a parallel intention to covertly cull the "human herd."

This is not how the majority of decent people behave, nor is aggression typical in women. When women who profoundly desire power and status within a patriarchal-capitalist system seek to rise in status within it, they MUST adapt to its metrics.

So there is a vast difference (and sadly, it's a sign of poor scholarship and limited imagination in those who traffic in this meme) between human nature, what's natural for women, as a whole, and what's typified by the female tokens allowed high positions within this plutocratic excuse for a Democratic state.

Essentially, these individuals are supportive of a New World Order.

With wealth ALREADY accrued into fewer and fewer hands as a DIRECT result of the deregulatory schemes and scams that came into vogue in the past 20 years, and wars spreading (aided and abetted by entities like the Carlyle Group trafficking in weapons), and nature imploding all over (putting food, water, and lives at risk)... and NO course corrections in sight, it's obvious that those IN power or seeking it are devotees of the new global corporate control state. TPP and TIPP are its latest covert operational instructions.


"If the race in Pennsylvania or New Jersey is extremely close, I can imagine voting for Clinton for only one reason: " I can't think of any reason.


The only things that works for social justice are pitchforks and elbow grease.


This year I am going to give serious consideration for third party candidates. I'm tired of the same shit every election; the same promises that go broken.


"Should anyone outside the 1% bother to vote ?" lost the author some cred.

Unless a third party candidate is doing exceptionally well, why would the 1% waste their time voting when they own the Democratic Party and the GOP. If a Democrat or Republican wins.the 1% wins.


Only a point of information: Editors, not authors, usually prefer to give titles to articles.


Plenty. Not so much on CD these days, but even on CD some of them used to say so, and they will again if Bernie does not not get to be the Dem candidate.


Along with permanent war we are going to need permanent sit ins. That is unless we dump the oligarchy's representatives and start moving to a participatory democracy.

A good start would be to make voting mandatory or at least incentivize it. 300 million people can overwhelm the oligarchy's bribery based system with our votes because it depends on low voter turnout to remain in power.

"They don't give us any good candidates to vote for"? Then we vote for our own. Vote for the best we have like Bernie and Warren. We may not win if we vote, but if we don't we are sure to lose.

I don't know about you, but I'm too old to wait for a bloody revolution to happen to make life rosy (shades of Bush/Cheney's Iraq revolution and the greeting of our troops with roses). Even then, there is no guarantee that another dictatorship won't take the place of our present one.

The oligarchy will pour millions into lowering voter turnout. Their shills will be back on these sites doing all they can to keep us from voting.

Consistently high voter turnout is our chance to fix things. I hope we don't blow this one. The best democracies are those with the highest voter turnout.


Roni Poteat, a commentator on another web page noted today that:

"About 10 years before the 2008 Wall Street crash spins the world economy into a massive recession, Sanders votes “no” on a bill to undo decades of financial regulations enacted after the Great Depression.

“This legislation,” he predicts at the time, “will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers, increased charges and fees for individual consumers and small businesses, diminished credit for rural America and taxpayer exposure to potential losses should a financial conglomerate fail. It will lead to more mega-mergers, a small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry and further concentration of power in our country.” The House passed the bill 362-57 over Sanders’ objection."

Today, I replied that Bush senior famously derided Bill Clinton's appeal by sarcastically referring to the "vision thing." As Roni Poteat's posting above demonstrates beyond any doubt, there is a chasm of difference between what Sanders was able to foresee way back then (while HRC was still First Lady) and where HRC is today as she awkwardly and in revisionist fashion attempts to rebrand herself by echoing and co-opting progressive themes that are widely resonating with the American public.

So, unlike Bush senior’s sarcasm about Bill, there really is a fundamental and substantive “vision” issue that distinguishes Bernie from Hillary: he’s had his eyes open for a very long time, and she is only now opening her eyes and her mouth because the lights are on and it’s showtime for the pageant of candidates.


I forget where I read a comment to the effect that Bernie might do better to get a black Democrat woman politician from Texas as his running mate that Sen. Warren because she is likely to be more valuable as Senator from Massachusetts than as Vice President. And forget Hilary Clinton as VP, she would insist on running for President with Bernie Sanders as VP.


"...she is only now opening her eyes and her mouth because the lights are on and it’s showtime for the pageant of candidates." you are SO correct (except her eyes aren't open). those words coming out of her mouth now and those sincere looks on her face are a tribute to her ability to "fake it," if you catch my drift. she is an arch liar and manipulator and will say whatever it takes to fool the sheeple. it breaks my heart to see so many of even my own friends believing in her lies.


"Along with permanent war we are going to need permanent sit ins." yes, that was one of my first thoughts, too. wethepeople cannot sit in that kind of attendance. people have lives to try to lead, and just the phenomenon of habituation will drain energies, ability, and commitment to "keeping on it." more and more, i think only a real house-cleaning stands any chance at meaningful change....and a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt or killed in such a cleaning. your point about even with a revolution, another monster arising is valid. i've posted before that we need not only outrage, but also a guiding ideology instead of reactivity and a charismatic leader commited to the people, not unlike Debs.


agreed. the lesser of two evils still gives us evil. maybe the greater evil would hurt women's rights and advance the corporate agenda somewhat faster (to cite an example), but both evils will give us continued war and continued rape of the planet until the waters are devoid of vital life forms and the air and land are uninhabitable and devoid of most life.

becoming fatalistic, i'm beginning to think there is not much choice except to stand back, watch the implosion or collapse, and then TRY to build something up from the ashes. i can't participate in "the game" any longer.


As I've posted before, voting continually for the lesser evil, progressively lessens the evil until it is gone.


NB, you have NOOOO idea how much I wish you were right. It SOUNDS logical, but the reality is otherwise. Lower-than-whale-excrement like the Kocks (sic) and all their brethren as they gain in power and the 1%-ers rise to increasingly rarified air levels and the lower and middle class lose more and more $$$ and weal-protections like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamp and lunch programs are all the proof of the pudding I need. The lesser of two evil crumbs thrown out to us, like gay rights, ACA which helped SOME people a little bit, minimal protections for some immigrants, a vote or two for bees or the environment, a little increase in minimum wage, etc., are simply a palliative, something to hold the rabble at bay by saying, "See? We're here to help you, and honest to god, we're trying...but we are really sorry about the massive oil spills, oil train explosions, overcrowded prisons, Wall Street, and rising ocean temperatures..." I am not swallowing any more of it....too old, seen too much.


OMGG, you hit THAT nail squarely on the head! Fabulous post!


Voting continually for the lesser evil progressively lessens the evil. Its a mathematical certainty. Three evils are less than four evils. Two evils are less than three. One evil is less than two. Zero evils are less than one. When evil is gone, only good is left.

What you are arguing is that all evils are equal which is not true. That's like saying that permanent war is an evil that's equal to missing church on Sunday.

Its sad to see so many people that have given up.


I would like to know what evidence you base your assertion on. You can't ask people to take your word for it. There is an obvious bias in your statement that needs explaining. Otherwise people might think you are a Republican shill trying to suppress the vote.


NB, I haven't "given up," although it's tempting; I'm constitutionally incapable of that kind of giving up. I've just taken my banners and lances to a different arena. Again, your linear equation sounds logical, but its reality doesn't hold. The other "math statement" is: one step forward and two steps backwards. I hope you understand the gravity and pressing reality of the evildoers throwing out their crumbs to mollify the people, when they can be mollified or cowed, instead of allowing substantial change. Overall, the evildoers, both here and abroad, are winning. TPP is a perfect example. Oil spills and explosions are another. Perpetual wars with their ghastly costs are another. What lesser evil step are you seeing...that is NOT a palliative crumb? If you can't accept that the evildoers are winning, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.