This is a weird world that we live in, truthfully.
I mean, really, who could have thought that the headlines dominating the news today domestically here in the United States could possibly have come to pass?
We have a shooting in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where seven people were confirmed dead, and one injured. The attack has been called "random" for the time being, but that might just be because the attack just happened, and facts have not yet been collected sufficiently.
This was the first major mass shooting in the United States in 2016.
And then, of course, we have the primaries, which took place yesterday.
Both parties had primaries in South Carolina, and the two candidates that held big leads in that state, Trump for the Republicans and Clinton for the Democrats, wound up winning substantially. Nothing really all that shocking in that, as for week, the polls consistently revealed that this was what was likely to happen, barring some unforeseen scenario. There were no unforeseen scenarios.
There were some surprises, however. Clinton won in Nevada. It was a narrow win, and she barely eked out the victory, but it was nonetheless a win. Despite her shaky campaign at times, the issues that many voters have with trusting her (including yours truly), and despite the strong emergence of Bernie Sanders as a seemingly viable alternative to Clinton, and easily the most refreshing and honest candidate that I have seen since the first elections that I ever participated way back in 1992, Hillary managed to survive, and is now clearly the leader and frontrunner for the Democrats.
The Democratic establishment is having their way, imposing their will, unified as they are against Sanders.
That leaves the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, if she even manages to win the general election, which is far from decided. As of right now, most polls actually show her losing to all of the GOP candidates, although many of the pro-establishment, pro-Hillary supporters are insistent that she is the only electable candidate, the only one with a shot at giving the Democrats the White House in the upcoming election.
So, it is business and politics as usual for the Democrats.
You might think that the Democrats, who are considered the more progressive and possibly the ones who flirt with real change the most out of the two major parties, would have been the party that supported a so-called "outsider" candidate.
Not so.
There was billionaire Donald Trump, winning big again last night, taking South Carolina handily, and further cementing his status as the GOP frontrunner. Everyone else is running far, far behind.
Perhaps the big news yesterday came after the race, when Jeb Bush, both son and brother to former presidents and, at one time, the de facto leading candidate in the GOP, suspended his campaign.
Maybe Barbara Bush was right when she said that America has had enough of people named Bush in the White House. I know that I have had more than my fill of members of the Bush clan occupying the White House.
All in all, no really great news that I can tell. Hillary winning is predictable, and if she manages to win, her presidency would likely strongly resemble her husband's, which is hailed by many as a hugely successful presidency, but which also was a step back for the country in many ways. Hillary's preference for what she calls "incremental progress" is essentially a promise that it will be more of the same.
Yes, it would be historic if a woman finally wins the highest office in the land. But that would likely be just about the only truly historical marker, because otherwise, it would be more of the same. She takes money - big money - from big corporations, making her a corporate supremacist candidate. That, in turn, likely means more wars in the Middle East, more incremental changes and band-aids to a failing healthcare system where prices are ridiculous in an atmosphere that feels like "anything goes" is the rule of thumb. That means a whole lot of talk about environmental issues, but a decided lack of policy to go with it. Much like Obama, particularly during his first term. Much like Bill Clinton, during both terms, until the final three days, when he passed a series of sweeping environmental legislation, although he and everyone else surely knew that those reforms would be quickly swept away by the incoming president.
That is what I mean about the Clintons, and why I feel they have such issues with trust. Because everything that the Clintons do, they seem to do with their considerable, even overwhelming political ambitions in mind. Bill Clinton not had the most famous environmentalist in the country in his administration, but serving under him as Vice-President. They could talk a strong game when it came to environmental issues, but the reforms were actually quite modest, at best. The most sweeping reforms during a presidency that lasted the better part of a decade came in the final 72 hours, and everyone knew that they would be promptly done away with by President Bush. It made Clinton look like the good guy, and Bush like the bad guy. Also, it looks good on paper, although the reality was that a lot of this stuff actually lacked substance.
It was much the same case with the national debt. Clinton boasted that he had managed to pay off 60% of the national debt, which sounds great, doesn't it! It sounds magical, and leaves you wondering how he did it. When you pull the curtain back on his wizardry, however, you see that it is, indeed, all smoke and illusions. What he did was take out temporary loans to pay off the old loans, so he could rightly boast, in a purely technical sense, that he did indeed pay off such a huge sum of money that the country owed. Only, we still owed that amount, anyway. It was a brilliant piece of politics, but lacked anything more substantive than that.
Yet, that was quite indicative of the presidency of Bill Clinton in general. He could spin it so that it looked great! But when you take a closer look, when you pull back those curtains to see how everything was done? Well, it looks less than spectacular by that point.
Still, many Democrats seem to be choosing this again. They want the illusion, rather than the substance. They do not want to risk someone who too closely is associated with many of the labels that Democrats have been hurt by in the past, and have been running to distance themselves from ever since, at every turn. So, when you have a candidate like Bernie Sanders, who professes outright to be a socialist, that raises alarms. Many Democrats began to recycle old Republican arguments that Sanders was, in fact, a communist, that he was dangerous and reckless, that he was unelectable. All of these things run against the facts, because Sanders most certainly is not a communist, and despite the reputation that he could not win the general election, polls showed him comfortably ahead in most head-to-head polls against every major GOP candidate, while the same recent polls show Clinton losing right now to all of them.
The establishment within the Democratic party wants everyone to believe that Hillary is indeed a progressive. At least at this moment, they do. A few months ago, when Hillary and her supporters were comfortably ahead of Sanders and the race seemed over, she proudly chose to call herself a moderate. In the past, she was a self-described "Goldwater girl." Vastly different ends of the American political spectrum, but the Clintons always seem to land on their feet. They want to believe that Hillary will produce real, meaningful change, although her husband's wizardry did not seem to make America a better place except in his speeches. Hillary will do the same. She will electrify the Democratic base with moves that look great on paper, so she will be able to make certain claims about her leadership. But when you pull back the curtains, it is all smoke and mirrors. She is in bed with Goldman Sachs. She is opposed to bringing back Glass-Steagall Act, which her husband repealed in the first place. The very fact that she proudly calls herself a moderate when it seems politically profitable to do so, and then turns around and labels herself the "true progressive" when it is politically necessary for her to do so, betrays her willingness to say and do whatever it takes to get elected, even at the expense of the truth.
What her presidency would resemble, if she is indeed elected, would surely be a lot like her husband. I once heard it aptly described not so much by ideology, as by political pragmatism. Specifically, it was described as stepping cautiously on stones across a fast stream. Not so much a vision for the country, so much as a craft politician able to concentrate on poll numbers and superficial accomplishments blown up to look remarkable on paper. In reality, little changes for the better. Hillary already is employing those tactics, and they have served her well, much like they did for her husband. The Clinton political machine keeps on rolling, although more and more people are waking up to the reality that this does not represent real change, much less real improvement in their lives. Hillary voted for the PATRIOT Act, she voted for the Iraq War, and she is opposed to any major reform in the unfair healthcare system, or in bringing back Glass-Steagall. She talks a goo game on environmental issues, but let us see if that is backed up if she actually becomes president. Smart money would be on a big no in that regard.
And so, ironically, the Democrats, the party that poses as reformers and free thinkers, have opted for the establishment candidate within their ranks, while the Republicans, the stand pat party that traditionally favors consistency, instead seem to be at least flirting with what would be a real change within their ranks. No matter what you think of Trump (and I try not to think much about him myself), he nonetheless represents a change within the traditional party system. For that, he deserves some measure of congratulations.
Personally, I suspect that this represents a weariness by Americans in general of the superficially sunny outlooks that once worked, but no longer do. Some aspects of our society still reinforce that sunny, everything is wonderful message, even there is no place in the world where it is always sunny and beautiful. Still, the shopping malls and glossy economic reports would suggest otherwise. Beautiful actors in the entertainment world, with their often superficial talk and gossip and excessive focus on image, would suggest otherwise. And mainstream politicians hoping to tout their own paper accomplishments to further their political ambitions would suggest otherwise.
There was a time when these kinds of sunny forecasts worked for Americans. When we reflect on the so-called Golden Age for the United States, back in the 1950's and 1960's, people seem to recall a more innocent, honest time. The word of the president was taken seriously, even if people disagreed with him. There was a lot more respect towards many things in general, as well, which necessarily translated to a lot less skepticism. Politicians were taken seriously, and so their sunny forecasts were, as well. Of course, things were considerably better in the United States at the time, in terms of how it looked in the world's standings, as well as the strength of the economy and overall quality of life. People felt good, felt confident, and so they could afford to buy into the same kind of thing with entertainment, as well. Actors and other entertainers were looked up to as the most successful and beautiful people in a nation that believed itself to be, at least collectively, successful and beautiful. Economic indicators suggested that there was no end to it all. The good times were here, and it seemed, they were here to stay.
Fast forward to the present day, and economists, entertainers (especially in Hollywood), and politicians still are pretty much on the same point about how rosy everything looks (at least politicians who are in office will suggest these things). But living standards have definitely and generally declined, and they have been doing so for decades now. Some would suggest otherwise, including politicians, of course. Hillary would suggest otherwise, as would Jeb Bush, although he was forced to suspend his campaign. No more Bushes in the White House, at least, suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was the right course of action to take. Let us see if we will see a Clinton in there instead.
But all of this brings me back to the other news dominating the headlines this morning, the one about the mass shooting. Because for all of their wonderful talk in pursuit of higher office, the politicians once again are ignoring a real problem here. Mass shootings, and gun violence in general, is ridiculously high in the United States, far more than in any other country supposedly at peace. It remains a blight on our international reputation, and nothing substantive is being done about it. Once again, we have too many people dead, and all we will get from politicians seeking higher office are the standard lines about the family of the victims being in their prayers.
Surely, if there is a sign today, this very morning, about just how little we can expect any real, meaningful change, that would be it in a nutshell.
No comments:
Post a Comment