Polls show Democrats want a contest, not a coronation, for their presidential nomination. The press yearns for a primary contest, if only to have something to cover. A raft of reasons are floated for why a challenge would be useful, most of them spurious.
The article basically outlines why Clinton WON'T HAVE a populist challenger. The Progressive ideals laid out in this article are the main points that America Inc. won't tolerate in an election campaign. Expect the usual boring rhetoric as Hillary's fast track coronation will ensure that the country continues its shift to total corporate allegiance. Any politician who spouts Progressive ideals will be immediately marginalized, demonized, trivialized and ignored by the MSM. Whether this occurs in the form of a third party candidate or whether the populist arises within the ranks of the Democratic Party, corporate fundamentalism will rule the day. Even core phrases like "raising the minimum wage" will translate into no more than tossing the 99% a doggy bone with something insulting like a hike of 50 cents an hour and more promises of hikes "further down the road".
The absence of election reform is a no brainer as the recipients of corporate allegiance won't bite the hand that feeds them. Any debate about universal healthcare is also off the table as are reductions to the military budget, ending Israel's 3.5 billion a year gift from Uncle Sam, ending mass incarceration, closing Guantanamo, dissolving 'Homeland Insecurity', cancelling the War on Terror, strengthening the social safety net or creating a 'living wage' (i.e. $20 an hour). Climate change will continue to get lip service as both Democrats and Republicans will boast about our increased fossil fuel extraction. Solutions to end poverty will also focus on "tax cuts" for the poor (as if the poor have money to be taxed) instead of financial assistance. Infrastructure improvements will only occur in reinforcing our commitment to fossil fuels by building more roads while making cuts to public transportation. Both candidates will prance around with a entourage of celebrities as "experts" weigh in about which candidate is most attuned to the "American people".
Democracy may be dead in America, but the show must go on!
What's wrong with this article?
- A "challenger" sounds unlikely to win in a pre-scripted, pre-planned, and basically useless pre-election election called a 'primary'.
- A "populist challenger" would not be allowed unless s/he is part of the above-mentioned script and plan.
- "Democratic primaries" frames the issue of increasing the number of populist candidates as residing solely within the Democratic party and assumes that is the readers' party of choice.
In my view, while we certainly need populist candidates, we do not need primaries, populist challengers in primaries, or even the Democratic party itself.
Jim Webb is a populist?
Oh yeah, that's the whole point of this article. Get us thinking that Webb is a populist. Then when Hilary picks him for her VP all us so easily fooled populist will fall in line.
In the EU in countries such as France . people like the Far Right Nationalist Jean Marie Le Pen was seen as a populist. All manner of parties that have at the core of their policies , Nationalism , Imperialism and Militarism can be seen as "populists".
What is needed in the United States of America are Socialists or Environmentalists.
Neither of these exist in the Democratic party.
Sheesh indeed. Also furrfu.
Don't even bother with Dems - just go Green :0