We are told that it is already basically etched in stone. That come November, you will essentially have to choose, once again, between the lesser of two evils. I prefer the way Michael Moore once referred to it as "the evil of two lessers."
Indeed, if there was ever a major political race where this sad truth was the case, it would indeed be a fight for the White House between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
She's not a good person, and will say everything and anything to get herself elected.
Once she gets the office that she seeks, political pragmatism will inform her decisions, whether or not that is in the best interests of the people that she is supposed to represent. After all, as a Senator from New York, she voted for the Iraq invasion, which President Bush was aggressively pining for. She voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout. She worked out much of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that she now, suddenly, is against, since polls show that a majority of voters are against it. She votes for tax breaks for the rich.
Also, she opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall, which her husband got rid of while serving in the Oval Office.
Oh, she's sounded very progressive in the last few months. But that is only because she needed to, as Bernie's phenomenal popularity suddenly was challenging her formerly virtually uncontested ascendance to be the nominee for the Democrats. Suddenly, and surely painfully for her, she had to talk the talk of the progressives that she has not only ignored for so long, but seems to disdain. Suddenly, she had to talk about getting tough on the big banks and Wall Street, which Bernie was right to sarcastically reply that they must really be shaking in their boots over that. After all, can she really be believed, when she takes millions of dollars from those very same banks that she is vowing to get tough on?
And if you believe that she will, I have a bridge connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing.
Many of her supporters seem to like her simply because she would get an important and inevitable milestone in American history out of the way. Specifically, she would become the first woman elected president. However, she would continue some of the worst excesses that men have been known for, and thus would not be a refreshing change in that regard, but very much more of the same. In fact, it would be worse in some ways, because the thought that a woman could simply continue with things the way they are, and would make no real changes, is depressing. All the more depressing when you stop and consider that she has already gotten away with a lot probably because she is a woman, and thus has gotten a free pass for her ties to big money from corporations and very wealthy donors.
It's too easy to pay a few politicians of either party to forward the interests of moneyed elites, even when these things are not only not good for Americans, but actively against their best interests. I wish we had a viable alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps a real first round of voting, where people could vote their conscience and not necessarily for either of these two parties, like they have in Europe. Or, at the very least, it would help to have a viable third or fourth option than the two major parties, both of whom reek of insider entitlements and corruption.
We need options that would represent legitimate modes of political thought. I am not one of those who dismiss conservatism automatically, out of hand. The idea of fiscal conservatism of course makes sense, and is hard to argue against. As Andrew Bacevich suggested, at the end of the day, the books have to balance. Also, there is something to be said for continuity, for consistency. For a healthy respect of established institutions. There are conservatives that I respect, such as Dwight Eisenhower.
Also, it sure would be nice to have a truly progressive political movement or party to vote for during election season, instead of a heavily watered down political party with far too many ties to big corporations and banks, with an obscene amount of money being poured into the war machine. Each election season, particularly during the primaries, some Democrats will outdo one another in praising progressive values, and then, they turn much more "moderate", which is to say corporatist, in time for the general election. Every now and then, they might throw the voters a bone, such as with Obamacare. But by and large, any truly progressive ideology has not been advanced for many decades now.
The same can be said for true conservatism.
It is time for a change, and this has never been as evident for many Americans as it appears to be right now, when the establishment candidates from both parties have been strongly challenged and, in the case of the GOP, even ousted.
Now is the time for real political expression.
Hillary Clinton says she isn’t sure Bernie Sanders is a Democrat Dylan Stableford Senior editor April 6, 2016