Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Asses Clutching Pearls

The Democratic Party bigwigs won't be satisfied until Bernie Sanders packs up his whips and heads straight out to Vegas to give a personal spanking to all his rude supporters. Although only one upended chair (as far we can tell from watching the video*)  landed on absolutely nobody, harming absolutely nobody, the whole class must be punished. A sternly worded message must be sent in order to bewilder the herd.

 Bernie is also supposed to don his Sherlock Holmes deerstalker and put a trace on a bunch of threatening phone calls and emails to the state's party chairwoman. Apparently, the Vegas police are too busy pulling over drunk gamblers to bother with run-of-the-mill harassment cases. Funny that party leaders haven't demanded any such investigation by law enforcement.


And after Sanders is done whipping the whippersnappers and tracking down the trolls and stalkers (who might even be paid Trump or Clinton black ops provocateurs for all we know) he is then supposed to give A Major Speech to condemn himself and his campaign. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was shocked and appalled when Sanders suggested that it was his supporters who are the victims of a rigged system, that it is the Democratic bigwigs themselves who were the provocateurs when they refused to give his delegates a seat and a voice. Reid expects Sanders to disown all who dared loudly complain about the dirty tricks at the weekend party convention.

Obviously taken aback by what he perceived to be non-collegiality on the part of Sanders, Reid sputtered on the teevee with all the incoherence he could muster: "Bernie should say something and not have some silly statement. Bernie is better than that. He should say something about this and not have some statement someone else prepared for him. Bernie needs to say something and not what he said, but something he would say. I expected words to come out of his mouth as if they were his. Um, not read them and uh, prepared. Prepared by someone else. Bernie really should have said something."

(Bernie apparently is not up to par on that whole Homeland Security directive to rat out your fellow citizens whenever you see them driving wearing a hijab or typing on an iPad with a long dark beard in an airport. If he saw film of chair-throwing by those always-suspicious working class white dudes, he should likewise say something.)

To be fair to Reid, though, the intra-party cluelessness on display is actually deeply ingrained and endemic. Maryland Democratic Chairman Bruce Poole, for example, groused: "I think Bernie has got to watch it, because at some point he's got to be accountable and if he allows this to go from debate and democracy to mayhem, there will be backlash."

Poole seems to think that Bernie set the debate schedule, and that democracy is something more than a public relations concept. He forecasts "backlash," but doesn't specify its source. If he were honest, he would admit that any mayhem that broke out in Nevada was instigated by the party machinery itself. The backlash is already here, Bruce.

DNC chair and Clinton supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not accepting Bernie Sanders's statement calling for nonviolence, because he had the unmitigated gall to also address the psychic violence of the party machinery itself. “With all due respect, when there is a ‘but’ in between condemnation of violence generally, and after the word ‘but’ you go on to seemingly justify the reason that the violence and intimidation has occurred, then that falls short of making sure that going forward this kind of conduct doesn’t occur in the future,” she said.

But-Haters of the World, Unite!

I haven't heard one politician, other than Sanders, point to the root causes of the popular outrage that has fueled both his campaign and that of Donald Trump. Nevada was hit especially hard by the housing crash, with foreclosure and eviction rates among the highest in the nation. Even though the unemployment rate has decreased in the state over the past few years, wages are still low and jobs are still precarious.  The psychological effects of man-made recession can last a lifetime. And at one point, the unemployment rate among Nevada youth shot up to above 20 percent, very similar to the statistics of the Great Depression. And both parties have reacted by imposing austerity and by cutting New Deal and Great Society social programs such as Job Corps and food stamps and direct cash aid to the poor and unemployed.

The Nevada Democratic leadership should count itself blessed that Saturday's meeting was actually as restrained as it was. They act as if it was an armed attack, with guns a-blazing. A couple of shoved chairs and an outbreak of yelling and screaming at officials is nothing compared to the corporacracy-sanctioned harshness that some of the youthful participants in the political process have endured in their own lives.

Bernie Sanders is perfectly right and just in putting their interests above those of the tone-deaf, self-interested Democratic machine. If his original function was to be a sheepdog, he seems to have abandoned it and instead donned his pit bull duds. Spiked collar and no muzzle. I hope it lasts!


***

Paul Krugman of the New York Times was even more inchoate than Harry Reid when he began one of his shocked, shocked I tell you blog-posts yesterday with: "Ugh. More primaries today. Do they matter?" (Does this guy write just like Thurston Howell III talks, or what? I keep picturing the monocle fogging over with disgust before it slides completely off so as to save him from reading any more of his imaginary Berniebro Tweets.)

Krugman seems to think that the main problem of millions of suffering people is not social and economic injustice, but rather a math disability coupled with a failure to perceive reality. And with a few carefully chosen words, he actually proceeds to dehumanize them.  "If news reports say that he 'won'  tonight, they’ll persist in their illusions — and the narrative that Clinton is somehow stealing the nomination will continue to fester." (Like suppurating sores, Lovey. Ugh!)

I admit that I took the toxic click-bait, and bit down hard:
Icky poo, for sure. Democracy keeps rearing its ugly head, persists in delaying the inevitable coronation. The great unwashed masses are just too stupid to gobble up the yummy reality that the elite consensus-builders keep patiently serving up. What is wrong with these Sanders supporters anyway?
I assume that at least some of them are hoping for an indictment or a scandal based on some actual reality and evidence, as opposed to the vast right-wing conspiracy. But I think what a lot of them have trouble wrapping their heads around is the reality that political parties are not inherently democratic. They are actually closed, private corporations with rules that ensure their own survival and nothing else. They exist for the sole purpose of perpetuating themselves, raising money from wealthy investors, and maintaining their power. They'll invite you in on occasion for public relations purposes, but if you don't behave yourselves, they'll either disinvite you or kick you out. And Paul Krugman will even add his own very special "Ugh" to give the slobovians an extra inkling of just what the establishment expects of them.
 Sanders told his supporters last week that he should not be considered any kind of hero. He will endorse Hillary Clinton after all the voters have had a democratic chance to cast their votes. My hope is that this endorsement will be as tepid as decently possible and that he will then go on to inspire, perhaps even lead, an extra-party movement from the ground up.
The elites are afraid, because their main electoral platform of NotTrump, presented by one of the weakest and most loathed candidates in modern history may, in fact, end up with the election of Donald Trump. I'm even beginning to suspect  that these miscreants would rather have a President Trump than a President Sanders, despite all their hectoring that Bernie supporters are the depraved anarchists in the mix.


***

Sanders, meanwhile, essentially tied Clinton in Kentucky and beat her handily in Oregon.

 Here's his entire statement on the Nevada controversy:

“It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics. The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors.

“The Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change – people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy.

“Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
“If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned. I am happy to say that has been the case at state conventions in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii where good discussions were held and democratic decisions were reached. Unfortunately, that was not the case at the Nevada convention. At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:

    • The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
    • The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
    • The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.
      The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.
“These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.”

*Update: Please see comments for more links to film of the Nevada "chaos." It seems that the footage I embedded in Monday's post was from only one strategic angle, making it appear as though somebody had deliberately tossed a chair. Other angles tell a whole different story.

27 comments:

Pearl said...

Great column Karen. I am sick and tired of the CNN crew emphasizing how dangerous Bernie supporters can be and never mention what really created the anger in Nevada.

I think this has exposed to anyone with a brain, how the Democratic bigwigs have destroyed democracy in this coronation event and hope the Bernie supporters (especially the youth)will learn and remember the facts of life they are viewing first hand.

No matter, as you have pointed out, how Bernie fares at the Convention, his political revolution has been born and hope it grows up strongly for the future.
Perhaps a few more icebergs disappearing may help emphasize the need for immediate change in order to survive physically and politically.

And thanks for including your comment to PK and Sanders' comment about Nevada. They don't mention Bernie's statements much on CNN or in the news nor discuss his near win and win in two more states.

I hate to say it but should Hillary lose to Trump, I will not weep. They can contain Trump easier than dealing with Hillary. Neither the military or congress will allow Trump to follow his dreams. But they will give in to whatever Hillary wants.

I would love to see Bernie become the person to deal with Trump and win but the super delegates will never allow it. I am fastening my seat belt.

Karen Garcia said...

Thanks, Pearl. It is pretty amusing to watch the media-political complex's group freakout. I am back to feeling the Bern, to the extent that I am all fired up and ready to go in the class war. The toothpaste is not going back in the tube this time. It'll be harder to send out pepper-spraying cops to political conventions than it was to send them to the Occupy camps in the dead of night.

I do sense this morning that some of the elites, realizing that their hectoring is only making the situation worse for them, are beginning to soften their tone somewhat. Krugman's second blog-post - which you can look up on my "Roll" - is slightly more placatory toward the Festering Mob. We have now been promoted from crazed maniacs to well-meaning dupes.

Elizabeth Adams said...

Absolutely outstanding post! Glad you have your bern back. :)

Counterpunch has a couple of good articles up today: one about our needing more than the two parties (which are like four right now) we have; and,the mainstream media's going crazy with "provable falsehoods" -- e.g. there was no chair.

Sanders and his supporters have every right to be upset with the primary system. Primaries are paid for with taxpayer money. Caucuses are paid for by the parties themselves. It makes no sense to have our money taken by the parties and then be excluded from participation in the outcome.

Pearl said...


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/18/the-faux-fracas-in-nevada-how-a-reporters-pack-of-lies-ran-riot-in-the-fact-averse-media/

paintedjaguar said...

And if you want to see for yourself, here is the only documented instance I've found of a chair leaving the ground (not thrown) or any other act more "violent" than shouting and fist shaking (if you don't count the violence to democracy done by Hillary's cronies in Nevada).

Second video on page @ a little past 00:04:30 --
http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/nevada-democratic-convention-raw-video-videos-full-replay-sanders-delegates-election-fraud-jason-llanes-periscope-youtube/

or directly from the filmer's Facebook page --
https://www.facebook.com/AdryennAshley/videos/10153761902337695/

mc said...

Pearl and Painted Jaguar--Thank you for the links to the "thrown" chair, not "chairs." Casinos are filled with security cameras and that one was clearly well represented with cops. Had chair-throwing occurred in any significant way, it's doubtful we wouldn't have tons of video and a few arrests. We have neither. Just another "Huerta/Ferrera"-like claim of harm that never actually occurred but that gets used as a bludgeon to dominate news cycles in which Hillary can't close the deal and her supporters actually do attack Sanders people in hotels. It's not just the powers that be in the two parties who face long-term decline from this election, it's the media that stenos the BS. So it won't just be the parties but also those outlets that should feel the chill from Sanders supporters when all this is done.

Karen Garcia said...

Thanks, everybody, for setting the record straight re the "thrown" chair or chairs. I was among those fooled by the initial reports. I revised my post to reflect the newer evidence. I really appreciate the input.

Some of the propaganda is getting very sophisticated indeed, and it seems to be coming from every direction at once. We all have to keep our eyes and minds wide open.

Just seeing my own words constantly twisted and my motives impugned by the gaslighting Clinton operatives on the Times comments boards should have clued me in that something very rotten was/is going in Vegas. Luckily, it hasn't stayed there.

It is also highly suspicious that audio of the "threats" was only released several days later. I know if I'd gotten those types of threats I would have been on the phone to 911 immediately instead of desultorily reporting in to the media. It seems to me that it would be easy as pie to trace the calls and emails and arrest the alleged culprits. Very suspicious, very Karl Rovian.

paintedjaguar said...

The angry voice message to Roberta Lange could have been a Bernie hothead letting off steam. On the other hand, it's now public knowledge that Hillary has been running a paid campaign ("Correct the Record") of social media trolling and agitprop. So I'm not ready to credit any claim that can't show a documented link to a real person. Frankly, the Clinton campaign is seeming more and more like Nixon all over again (I'm old enough to remember).

Meredith NYC said...

Thanks for info on the Nevada thing.
Remember the Watergate/Nixon dirty tricks, and the scenes in All the President's Men about it, and where Bernstein visited the dirty tricks guy? In those days they didn't even have the internet. Today anonymous Social media and agitprop make this so much easier.

And then our eminent Nobel Con of a Lib Krugman cherry picked ugly posts on Sanders twitter that maligned Hillary, and K actually wrote an outraged blog about it. How low can you go. Some of the Times comments insulting Sanders are likely mild compared to what's on social media, b/c the Times monitors comments.

Nobody knows who wrote those twitter posts, whatever they're about--- i never read them. But the eminent Nobel went looking for them. Anybody could have written them---can't be traced. So can't believe anything. Including anything that's now written in the Times--which founder Adolph Ochs said was to be written 'without fear of favor'.

Meredith NYC said...

I commented to the Times article Bernie Sanders Wins Oregon. I said

The reason for some of the Sanders fan’s justifiable resentment is the dissing of Sanders by the media and the Dem party insiders. He’s been labeled a radical extremist left wing dreamer and his coverage has been insulting.

But Sanders ideas were once quite mainstream liberal in the US, and are centrist now in many democracies. It is Clinton’s incrementalism that resists reform against the elites that is actually unrealistic—because it won’t accomplish the goal of resurrecting the strong middle class we once had. Or the upward mobility the US was famous for.
This has never been explained in the NYT, which is supposed to report all the news fit to print, without fear or favor, to quote its founder.


Several replies to my comment above challenged this rather vehemently, seeing America's past totally differently. They disagree that Sanders ideas are similar to US past policies.

Clips:
“This is a statement of opinion, without citation or other basis in fact. Please cite sources for your assertions that Mr Sanders' plan for rebuilding the middle class would be more politically and economically effective than Ms. Clinton's.
or
The argument that some of his positions were once quite common place and mainstream is silly and offensive: dems tried to get t better healthcare for 40 years and did not succeed. The war on women's reproductive freedom has been waged since the 70's
or
Which ideas were ever mainstream liberal in the US? Breaking up banks? Free college? No federal handgun waiting period? No ban on assault weapons?
or
The first stage of grief is denial. Denial that your candidate's message did not resonate as much as you would have liked. So, you seek to blame the media. And you seek to blame the Democratic Party. And you seek to blame the voters. You have my sympathy, but not my agreement with your comments.”

I replied:
What was much more accepted as centrist by most people, including moderate republicans like Eisenhower, etc--was free or low cost state college tuition subsidized by taxes, anti monopoly laws, high marginal tax rates for the rich and corporations, regulations on business, union bargaining that lifted wages/benefits for all, and jobs kept in the US. Plus huge federal infrastructure highway projects.

Plus health care costs had not yet soared into huge profit centers, causing millions of bankruptcies and leading to earlier deaths disabilities.

Plus Glass Steagall and other bank regulations working to prevent huge crashes since the 1930s.
This contrast isn’t known by all b/c the media doesn’t talk about it.

(But one positive reply gave this link:
"Bernie Sanders says Americans back his agenda — and he’s mostly right"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/12/bernie-sanders...)

Pearl said...

Now we know (from CNN and other honest reporting) that the polls of Hillary vs. Trump dropping her numbers lower is of course due to Bernie's stubborn behavior that is exposing us to Trump getting the upper hand.
They cannot explain why her polls to defeat Trump are dropping except to blame Bernie for his destructive statements that are destroying the uplifting purposes of the Democratic party, leaving them weakened as a result of Bernie's refusal to leave the premises.

A CNN pundit actually said that if Hillary was honest about creating unity, she would respond to the latest brouhou instead of ignoring it. (African American man who occasionally says something intelligent - new there).

Meredith NYC said...

I commented to the Times article Bernie Sanders Wins Oregon. I said

The reason for some of the Sanders fan’s justifiable resentment is the dissing of Sanders by the media and the Dem party insiders. He’s been labeled a radical extremist left wing dreamer and his coverage has been insulting.

But Sanders ideas were once quite mainstream liberal in the US, and are centrist now in many democracies. It is Clinton’s incrementalism that resists reform against the elites that is actually unrealistic—because it won’t accomplish the goal of resurrecting the strong middle class we once had. Or the upward mobility the US was famous for.
This has never been explained in the NYT, which is supposed to report all the news fit to print, without fear or favor, to quote its founder.
--- --- ----- ---

Several replies challenged this. They disagree that Sanders ideas are similar to US past policies.

Clips:
“This is a statement of opinion, without citation or other basis in fact. Please cite sources for your assertions that Mr Sanders' plan for rebuilding the middle class would be more politically and economically effective than Ms. Clinton's.
or
The argument that some of his positions were once quite common place and mainstream is silly and offensive: dems tried to get t better healthcare for 40 years and did not succeed. The war on women's reproductive freedom has been waged since the 70's
or
Which ideas were ever mainstream liberal in the US? Breaking up banks? Free college? No federal handgun waiting period? No ban on assault weapons?
or
The first stage of grief is denial. Denial that your candidate's message did not resonate as much as you would have liked. So, you seek to blame the media. And you seek to blame the Democratic Party. And you seek to blame the voters. You have my sympathy, but not my agreement with your comments.”

I replied:
What was much more accepted as centrist by most people, including moderate republicans like Eisenhower, etc--was free or low cost state college tuition subsidized by taxes, anti monopoly laws, high marginal tax rates for the rich and corporations, regulations on business, union bargaining that lifted wages/benefits for all, and jobs kept in the US. Plus huge federal infrastructure highway projects.

Plus health care costs had not yet soared into huge profit centers, causing millions of bankruptcies and leading to earlier deaths disabilities.

Plus Glass Steagall and other bank regulations working to prevent huge crashes since the 1930s.
This contrast isn’t known by all b/c the media doesn’t talk about it.

(But one positive reply gave this link:
"Bernie Sanders says Americans back his agenda — and he’s mostly right"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/12/bernie-sanders...)

Karen Garcia said...

Um... the African-American man "who occasionally says something intelligent" referred to in the last comment has a name: Van Jones. He is the former Obama green czar who got fired from the administration after it was discovered he had signed a 9/11 Truther petition, yet he still has remained stoically loyal to both the party and the administration. So, perhaps he is merely acting the part of designated "good cop" in the current star chamber proceedings being waged by the media against Sanders supporters. This is one of the operatives whom they hope will be able to eventually cajole them into the Clinton fold once he has bravely taken on the duty of "feeling their pain" - while his more authoritarian media colleagues take on the role of scolders.

Anyway, this is only limited to a proxy war between Jones and Debbie W.S., who is willingly playing the witch role in order to allow Hillary to stay above the fray.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/van-jones-escalates-war-with-debbie-wasserman-schultz-i-wish-reince-priebus-was-my-party-chair/

Ste-vo said...

Van Jones. I got an email from him the other day. Huh? I have trouble with men who shave their heads and grow facial hair.

Pearl said...

Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in the Homestretch
By PATRICK HEALY, YAMICHE ALCINDOR and JEREMY W. PETERS
Determined to transform the party, the senator is aiming to amass enough leverage to press his agenda at the convention — or even wrest the nomination.


Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/1V9sYez

Meredith NYC said...

Karen
Last night I posted my comment to the article 'Sanders Wins Oregon', with some reply clips and then my reply listing how Sanders ideas were more centrist in the past. Where is the post?

Elizabeth Adams said...

And now it has been said there will be no exit polls for the remainder of the primaries.

http://freepress.org/article/professor-fitrakis-flunks-nations-joshua-holland-exit-polls

Jay–Ottawa said...

How to avoid being tricked at any point along the US electoral process, i.e., being made an ass of by the politicians.

First and foremost, believe very little of what you read in the newspapers.

Distrust parties and party mechanisms, with their smoke-filled backrooms, big money allegiance issues, the weird math of caucuses, and those in-house closed primaries for selecting candidates for party loyalists––and everybody else too.

Assume candidates are lying, or intentionally violating the rules of logic, until you have proof positive that they are telling the truth, or at least a fraction of the truth.

Approach party conventions, state or national, with a sense of humor since they are managed media circuses with lying platforms, mad hat rulings, and superdelegates with the power to erase the will of the majority in the hall, as well as beyond the convention's closed doors.

Last but not least, have very little faith in not-so-neutral voting machines and their math-defying final counts declaring winners losers and losers winners. (h/t Elizabeth Adams, above).

General Jinjur said...


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/20/mob-politics-the-democrats-have-a-problem-and-its-not-the-sandernistas/

And ot but Krugman's latest entry in N Y T has a satisfying number of people who view his 'evolving' with disapproval. I still remember how sweet and earnest and caring he appeared to be on tv shows years ago. Once he began being main cheerleader for the ACA and no reasonable comments over time pointing out deficiencies were ever acknowledged or addressed as anything other than lies or anecdotes, he's just devolved into a caricature.

General Jinjur said...


http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/robert_reich_if_sanders_isnt_the_democratic_nominee_fight_for_20160520

The inevitable has begun, the expected urgings to vote the 'lesser of evils'.

Pearl said...

Just tuned in to Bernie Saunders blasting the rigged set up of the Democratic party, choosing super delegates in favor of Hillary before a single vote has been taken.
Response of CNN pundits: That is just like what Trump is doing and why are they both trying to destroy the democratic party (quoted loosely) and Bernie accusing the voting set up of being rigged is too strong. So now Bernie is compared to Trump to help demolish Bernie even more and since Hillary has many more votes than Bernie why doesn't he back off?
No surprise here and Bernie made a great couple of statements for his supporters.
I am fastening my seat belt tighter. Keep tuned.

Pearl said...


Why Hillary Clinton's Camp Should Be Scared
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/20/why-hillary-clintons-camp-should-be-scared/

Neil said...

Please keep in mind we live in a Republican Oligarchy. Does anyone expect this election to change that inconvenient truth?

Bernie Sanders to Janet Yellen: Are We an Oligarchy?

https://youtu.be/br0vMtzROEQ

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy, BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

"Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

We also live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Recall your Pledge of Allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

We live in a Republican Oligarchy.

Free link to the study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study, Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/04/14/us-oligarchy-not-democracy-says-scientific-study

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

Pearl said...

Neil:

"Please keep in mind we live in a Republican Oligarchy. Does anyone expect this election to change that inconvenient truth".

Yes, there are many people who expect this election to start changing that inconvenient truth and why it is such an important election. It is a barometer for the citizens who question the kind of direction their country is headed toward and are trying to get a footing toward change. It will become obvious no matter who sits in the Oval Office that time is running out on the important issues. If nothing else, Bernie has given voice to the facts you have listed and connected with a large portion of the citizenry who are becoming more aware daily of what is going on and validates their innermost thoughts.
There is vital communication now between large sections of voters who can support each other and encourage finding ways of instituting the kind of change Bernie speaks unceasingly about. As Karen said in her great column, we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube anymore.
Revolutions take time to develop and have to be nurtured and tested in order to change a structure that benefits only the few. I find it encouraging to see how frightened the establishment has become of people who challenge them and I hope the Democratic Convention circus will continue to educate us all.

Neil said...

Thanks Pearl for your comments.

The way I see things, discrimination, and regulatory capture, are the two most important issues today. Oligarchy is a result of regulatory capture.

Is Sanders ready to be the next Trust-Buster?

"The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt was the executive branch of the United States government from September 14, 1901 to March 4, 1909."

"He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved 44 monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster." He took care, however, to show that he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle, but was only against their corrupt, illegal practices.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Theodore_Roosevelt

"Owing to his charismatic personality, his extremely high energy levels and span of interests, and his reformist policies, which he called the "Square Deal", Roosevelt is considered one of the ablest presidents and an icon of the Progressive Era."

Ibid.

Does Sanders have the "charismatic personality" and "high energy levels" etc. of Teddy Roosevelt?

Pearl said...

"
Does Sanders have the "charismatic personality" and high energy levels" etc. of Teddy Roosevelt?

We won't know unless he is in office. Besides, charismatic personality can be a negative (like Bill Clinton) where it is used to divert from certain realities being hidden. As for energy levels, the choice of government advisors and heads of various functions thereof, make up a great deal of what actually happens. FDR for example could not have accomplished much without the help of outstanding advisors, a dutiful and intelligent wife and a decent Supreme Court among other things. How leaders choose their assistants and why is of paramount importance.
Needless to say the current voting structure is unable to choose and appoint a President who is knowledgeable, effective, surrounds him or herself with capable and honest officials as has been obvious for some time now.

The system makes the decisions and a president follows without rocking the boat and a Bernie Sanders is a threat to this situation. Surely a Hillary in charge would be the real threat here.

Pearl said...

Obama must apologize for his actions at Hiroshima http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emanuel-pastreich/-obama-must-apologize-abo_b_10144914.html via @theworldpost