With the fight over Fast Track authority in full swing and the battle lines drawn between progressive voices opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and corporate-backed forces rallying in its favor, a growing chorus of voices want Hillary Clinton, who recently made her presidential bid for 2016 official, to come down strongly on the controversial trade pact which so clearly represents the power struggle between the interests of big business on one hand and transparency, democratic process, and an economic system that protects workers, the planet, and the public good on the other.
Why is a website like Common Dreams pretending that they don't know what Hillary Clinton's real feelings for a treaty like this would be? Where have they been for the last 20 years? Hillary Clinton and her actual policies (not empty campaign rhetoric or speeches to select audiences) are out there for anyone to see, and if she is a liberal, then liberalism in America is dead.
All the DINO Dems are just waiting for the Republicans to start Hillary-bashing so they can slap a Hillary bumper sticker on their cars and go back to celebrating the stock market and praising racist snipers who kill evil brown people in the Middle East. After all, if Republicans hate her, it can only be because she's so progressive!
You can easily have a totalitarian state where everyone is armed, the US seems to be on its way to perfecting that now.
Is there any question where she stands? It was her husband that pushed NAFTA through and who oversaw the export of US jobs -- with USAID assistance to corporations choosing to move factories. She, like her husband and like Obama are corporate centrists and not friends of working people.
Once again--and this is so typical as to represent ROUTINE Talking Points--emphasis is made to demonize Hillary, Bill, Obama, and individuals...
It is this focus on INDIVIDUALS, particularly if they carry a Democratic, Liberal, or Progressive qualifier--that is promoted, and through it, INDIVIDUALS are demonized.
This level of analysis, which I term "The People Magazine" personal popularity contest approach takes attention away from what REALLY is going on and that is the TOTAL takeover of the U.S. political system by corporate--deep pocket--1% interests.
It's important to "get" the distinction since the individuals propped up as candidates within this system can be endlessly critiqued for their alleged personal flaws; but that form of focus maintains THE SYSTEM.
It is the system that is corrupt!
The system SELF-SELECTS individuals who are power-crazed, greedy, and willing to do ITS bidding.
It self selects because all of the following are required for candidates to win seats of significance (on local levels, there's more leeway... but of course less influence on the national stage):
- The cost of running a campaign
- The need for print ads, radio ads, TV ads and their costs
- What costs mean:
a. Either the candidate COMES from (and owns) Big Money
b. The candidate must win the favor of Big Money by agreeing to favor those entities' policy needs
- Citizens United granting corporations the "right" to purchase law and lawmakers
- Captured media that, through its lockstep reporters' chorus can make or break careers--lionize or demonize candidates quite effectively
- Gerrymandering has given certain right wing demographics disproportionate influence
- Supreme Court having a precedent for deciding an election outcome that deviated from voting majority numbers
- Private voting machine companies claiming secrecy/proprietary privilege in NOT making public their vote counts
In a system where $ runs it all, slim to no candidates that are not compromised CAN slip in and rise up. So the focus on how bad Hillary is misses the point.
Bill and his corporate democratic colleagues compete for that same big Wall St., media, big pharma, Big Agri, Big Energy, and Big MIC $ that the "other" team seeks.
Since BOTH have to dance for the same donor dollars and since both serve their corporate masters, the endless "debate" over Hillary's flaws is just a way of maintaining the game.
The problem is deeper and it's systemic.
Clinton/Obama may support the corporate take-over of America, but they also do something for the sheeple unlike any Grand Old Patriarch who would be kicked out of the party the minute they opposed any corporate right, domination or criminal behavior within or without of what is now USINC.
Hillary is just triangulating.
She's going to let Obama take the popularity hit on the TPP while the corporate media talks about phony issues such as her age.
I think it is necessary to point out the actual policy decisions these people willingly make, as they willingly take part in that very system that you consistently and accurately describe.
No one is forcing these individuals to willingly profit from that system. These individuals have entered this system in most cases already wealthy individuals who aren't exactly in a powerless position to where they have to do any particular thing for survival, thus their actual actions in the direction of joining that "system" are indicative of a strong will to participate.
What is the system without such participation?
I think it is absolutely necessary to both highlight the actions of these powerful individuals within the context of highlighting that system.
I don't think that approach is indicative of an individual trying to advance that emergent corporate governance, that emergent fascism, or that Deep State.
Yes P_C, unless we are brain dead, we all have the ability to make choices.
Recall the popular slogan during the 60s: IF THEY HAD A WAR AND NOBODY SHOWED UP, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE MUCH OF A WAR, WOULD YOU ?
Well, there's "RepublicansforHillary.org". But yes, Clinton was busy promoting the TPP before launching her pre-campaign speaking tour. She has consistently been pro-war, anti-poor, pro-corporate empowerment, anti-New Deal.
We lost. This isn't the first time in our history when the richest few took power over the country, of course. Each time in the past, the poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, ultimately united to push back, to everyone's benefit. With this generation, Democrats and lib media stepped up to deeply divide the "masses," pitting the middle class against the poor, workers against the jobless. This appears to leave us powerless.
This is the acid test for Clinton. This is her opportunity to break with the corporate juggernaut that is gutting American democracy. Everything hangs in the balance.
Clinton can't speak up, she'd have to lie or hurt her chances for the W.H.
What you keep repeating is at odds with what is really going on, that the middle class is united against the poor and that there is then some justice according to your argument that now the middle class is getting from the wealthy what the middle class already has done to the poor i.e., your argument tacitly supports the attack of billionaires and their servicing millionaires on everyone else.
The reason that inequality is at levels even greater than the roaring 20s is because of the attack by the would-be oligarchs against the middle class and against the social safety net servicing the poor that had come about largely fashioned by that middle class.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton's attack on the poor through their attack against welfare was indeed manufactured consent that absolutely had its beginnings in corporate interests moving through the twisted mind of Norquist who started that war against the poor while at the same time starting the war against taxation of corporations. The manufacturing of consent and of a cultural shift of people buying the link between prosperity for corporations meant prosperity for them, and that money spent for corporations was okay but not for helping the poor started with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine during the Reagan years and the day after that happened on that corporate servicing stage appeared Rush Limbaugh.
I'm not arguing that there haven't been people in the middle class that united against the poor. I'm arguing that the impetus for creating that cultural shift, that political shift began with an absolute plan by very powerful people to systematically attack BOTH the middle class and the poor. The so-called Reagan Democrats were the result of such a push.
The attack against the middle class was continued directly by the Administration of Bill Clinton with pushing for the ratification of NAFTA, the pushing for the Telecommunications Act of 1996, repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and the Financial Services Modernization Act.
The focus should remain on the fact that corporations have gained control of governance of this country, especially over the last 40 years.
I understand and agree with your argument on a certain level, but I think that your argument actually serves what you seem to be against. That division.
That division has come from the super wealthy, the new oligarchs, those negotiating secret terms of the TPP, those responsible for creating a vast system of surveillance that services that new class of corporate rulers that are now asserting their powers as global rulers of the masses.
Your argument misses the boat on very stormy seas.