However, the highlights were virtually unavoidable. They were all over the news on television, on the radio, in newspapers, and on the internet. Tons of people posted about them on Facebook and other social media sites. And so, it is hard, if not nary impossible, to avoid them altogether in our modern world.
Let me just say this: I did not think either convention was particularly impressive. Not the Republican hate fest, and not the Democratic Hillary love fest. By default, the Democrats were a bit better, but it still pained me to watch Bernie Sanders concede just days after it was revealed that so many of the allegations that the Democratic party establishment were cheating and actively undermining Bernie's chances proved to be true. And then, watching one of the most pathetic politicians around celebrate her victory and enjoy her most important moment to date, a tired old face when so many both on the left and the right feel a need for a fresh crop of new faces with new ideas? Well, it was just disheartening. One speaker after another extolled Hillary's virtues, even some who have actually been quite critical of her in the past. All of that was swept under the rug, so that she could receive what amounted to a ringing and unanimous endorsement from prominent Democrats (and even one Republican mayor of New York).
Frankly, it disgusted me, and felt like the crowning indignity in what was an unbelievably disheartening election season thus far. One that, frankly, feels like an insult to my intelligence. After all, it boiled down to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump among the Republicans. One is a religious fundamentalist who promised to make parts of the Middle East glow with all of the bombs he would drop there if elected to the White House (and what a Christian sentiment that is!). The other is this eccentric and obviously unpolished, arrogant billionaire with a very big mouth, and a tendency to frighten people with what certainly appears to be outright racism. And on the Democratic side, there was this flash of real inspiration with Bernie Sanders, who took on the political establishment (of both Democrats and Republicans) and offered some new solutions that sounded very different than anything else that anyone in the two major parties offered). But what hope was briefly there was, of course, extinguished, because the Democratic establishment, despite all of it's determined suggestions that Hillary was the obvious choice and that Bernie was not a viable candidate, nonetheless went ahead and basically cheated to make sure that Hillary Clinton won. If he was so unelectable, then why did they need to go so far as to cheat, anyway? And why did the polls continually suggest that Sanders was doing far better against Trump than Clinton was, and that her levels of people simply not liking her were far, far higher than those who disapproved of Sanders?
We had a chance to choose someone with actual integrity (imagine that!). We had someone who did not have a team of writers for every speech, making sure every word in the speech, and every hair on the candidate's head, was carefully put in the write place. We did not have an overly slick politician at every turn, we had a viable option who offered something very different. There was authenticity to Bernie Sanders that, frankly, had not existed among any truly prominent politician in decades. He sometimes seemed a little too loud, and some felt that he shouted. His hair was infamously a mess all of the time. He wore regular suits, rather than impeccable fashion designer clothes to epitomize ultra success. His speeches actually had unscripted moments, such as when a bird flew to his podium, and he briefly stopped the speech and broke out in a huge smile, or when someone screamed out "F- them!" when he was talking about the powers that be, and he actually agreed by saying, "In a manner of speaking." Not every word of his speeches was scripted, and his delivery certainly did not seem to be typical of presidential speeches, meaning that it was not overly processed and forced. It came from the heart of a patriot, who saw the world as it was, and offered real solutions. He had been patriotic all of his life, and had truly acted upon his convictions, even when it got him arrested.
What was more, he actually had a real chance there for a while! Clearly, this was a man that political insiders did not want, and even feared. He pointed out the problems facing the country without sugar coating them, and people saw that. They saw that he spoke the truth, and although his delivery was far from the polished and processed delivery of your standard politician, this had an attractive element that drew throngs of people. Crowds of thousands, and sometimes tens of thousands, went to see him speak, and his following grew. So did his popularity, as reflected in his poll numbers. Despite being told time and time again by prominent political pundits and the media that he was not a "viable" candidate, and that he stood no chance at winning, he kept beating Hillary Clinton in important states. Despite all of the things going against him, such as a lack of official support, a hostile media, strong opposition by Democratic party insiders, and finally, election rigging, he nonetheless seemed to have Hillary on the ropes. The only thing holding him back was the timidity of people who could not find it in them to acknowledge his truth, that Hillary was a phony, just another typical politician (even if she happened to be different than other prominent presidential candidates in that she was a woman). He was instilling real hope in Americans like me, who had come to be truly disgusted with the whole political system in this country, this machine that paid big bucks to the right people to make sure things ran precisely a certain way. Finally, Sanders felt like a glimpse of what could be, and restoring the democratic process itself seemed to be possible. A better country seemed to be possible. The patriots who wanted all of this really felt that he was bigger than party or personalities, that he represented a real chance - perhaps the last, best chance - to restore democratic values to the nation and, in the process, to restore power to the people.
However, the powers that be who control the political process in this country are nothing if not formidable, and eventually, they got their way. People in states like Arizona, Nevada, New York, and California were moved off the voters list, and oh, by the way, these happened to be people who were more likely to vote for Bernie Sanders. Many of the states had closed elections, registered Democrats only could participate, despite being publicly funded. And yes, Hillary (sometimes referred to be her detractors as Shillary), managed to win. We heard from Democratic party officials and the media that Hillary had won "fair and square" despite this overwhelming feeling to the contrary. Later, on the very eve of the Democratic National Convention, emails were exposed revealing that party insiders had indeed rigged things against Sanders. But Hillary supporters cried foul, asked us if it was wise to hurt their candidate, because it would help the big, bad wolf get into the White House. There still is a feeling that Hillary herself was the wizard behind the curtain, making sure all of these tricks, and the overall illusion, were in place to make her seem more than she is were in place. After all of the nonsense that was pulled, we were told to be good sports, to accept the loss. We were lectured to by party insiders and favorites, reminding us that Hillary herself had lost, and been a better sport. What clearly needed to be done was to sweep everything under the rug, put on a smiling face, and support Hillary. Once again, legitimate love of country, and a real, patriotic desire to look the dangers and problems that the country was burdened by square in the face and come up with and work towards real solutions. We were told by the Democrats that they admired our convictions, and they could really use our energy and determination, all while also being told, on the flip side, that we were just being bad sports, being overly dramatic, and we were scolded for being "ridiculous" for not only believing, but being actively unhappy that our worst suspicions that Hillary really did represent this anti-Democratic spirit that we suspected she epitomized, and which the whole email scandal seemed largely to confirm.
The Democrats all lined up and told us in speech after speech just how wonderful Hillary was. This included some people who had been on record as feeling otherwise at different points in their political careers. Some who had cited the most damning evidence against her in the past now spoke of her only in glowing terms. Then there was "Slick Willie" himself, telling us his personal, aw shucks story about making a fool of himself when he first tried to get with Hillary, and conveniently forgetting to mention how often he seemed to make a fool of himself, and often of the country, when he cheated on her, repeatedly. He delivered that speech just weeks after the controversial meeting on a Phoenix airport tarmac with the General Attorney in charge of the investigation of Hillary Clinton's conduct, but we were assured that this was mere coincidence. They met for almost half an hour, but trust us, we were told, they only talked about their grandkids and their golf game, and not about the pending case which, oh by the way, ended just a few days later, and with all charges basically dropped. Yet another scandal involving the Clintons carefully, tactfully swept under the rug. Score yet another political victory for our side! Hip, hip, hooray for our side!
Finally, there was Hillary Clinton, delivering what seemed like a technically perfect, clever speech. A little too clever to be true, and sometimes, you could just feel the power of the team of writers who prepared that speech for her. The well-oiled machine was running full blast, allowing nothing to stand in it's way. No olive branches extended towards Bernie supports, among whom were the young, the millennials, the very people who had the power of being the future of the party. But never mind all of that, this is Hillary's moment, and it's business as usual. After all, we were reminded, that was Donald Trump on the other side of the political ring. Do you really want to see him win this election? Because if we do not all reunite behind our beloved Hillary, then that is exactly what is going to happen! So, get over yourselves, we were told. You lost an election, and it happens all of the time. And so the cheating and rigging during the primary elections of the "Democratic" party was to be forgotten, despite solid evidence that it was real.
The thing is, what needs to be remembered is that Bernie represented to his followers a faith that this democracy itself could work. That the country was better than it's current political system, and that we could restore it's former greatness. The people could reassert control over their own fate, and not have to bow down to a system that favored "too big to fail" banks and corporations. And all of that was swept away by the very rigged system that Bernie had been fighting so hard against in the first place, and that his supporters came to believe was the greatest evil that held the country prisoner in a very real sense. Now, that political machine, with every hair and smile and speech processed to perfection, had it's shining moment of victory and, conveniently, everyone pined for the machine, and told us Bernie supporters, who felt that the cheating in this primary season too closely resembled the cheating by George W. Bush in the 2000 election, was not actually a big deal. We should not harp on that. Oh, and by the way, did we tell you who won on the other side? I mean, really, do you want Trump to win? Because let us remind you, yet again, that is what will happen if you fail to get behind the candidate who won "fair and square." So, let's all put on our smiling face and get behind Hillary Clinton!
After all of that, it began to sicken me to see Hillary Clinton's smiling face, or to hear her incessant lies and empty promises, knowing full well that she will likely turn her back on all of these bold promises once she's sitting in the Oval Office. Many Democrats seem satisfied with her, and I just could not figure out how this could be! I mean, she can legitimately be attacked by Donald Trump on certain issues where he is actually more left-leaning than she is! He opposed the Iraq war, although he was not an elected official. He is against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and wants to tear it up. He is critical of the major trade deals - particularly NAFTA and TPP - that she has either been all in favor of, or in the case of the TPP, actually helped design (although she officially is opposed to it now - and how long can we expect that opposition to last, anyway?). And he does not have such close ties or the backing that Hillary does from the big banks and corporate America, from Washington insiders, and the defense contractors. He does not have the endorsement from high profile Republicans like Laura Bush and some in Congress who refuse to support him, as well as the Koch brothers, who refused to endorse him and instead lent their support to Hillary. If that's not damning, I have no idea what is. Yet, the Democrats, who have railed against the Koch brothers for years, now, suddenly seem very quiet on that front, staying mum on the transparent hypocrisy of this well-oiled, political machine now in place, and on it's way to the White House, most likely.
That certainly does not mean that Trump deserves to win, or that his qualifications are strong. But what does it say about "our" proud candidate, Hillary Clinton, she who won a highly contested primary election, and happened to benefit by all of that now proven foul play?
Frankly, I view her as a mediocre, weak candidate. She has even higher disapproval ratings than Donald Trump, and much of her staunchest critics are not only from the right, but from the left! When you look at her extensive history of talking from both sides of her mouth and promising everything to everyone, while often wasting no time turning her back on her campaign promises once actually in office, it is not hard to figure out why. And maybe this will sound sexist, but frankly, I believe Donald Trump has a point when he argues that she has to play the woman card, because that is the only thing that makes her stand out in any positive way. If she was a man, with the ties to the big Wall Street banks and major corporate sponsors that she takes so much money from, both personally and politically, she would likely not have made it past the first month of primary season. Instead, she's the Democratic nominee, and we are supposed to be proud of her historic achievement - despite obviously cheating in order to get there.
And yet...
A lot of friends are urging everyone to vote for Hillary. There are a ton of articles everywhere, urging people to take the threat of a Trump presidency seriously. Many are even making the argument that it would be unethical to vote for anyone but Clinton, and suggest that a vote for someone else amounts to a vote for Trump.
Indeed, Donald Trump is a real threat to win this election. I look at the map, and know this to be true. He really can win those battleground states. And here's the thing: I will admit to still not taking Trump seriously. Yes, he is the Republican nominee. But he's a buffoon, and makes a mockery of the political system. Hillary is the tired face of the political system, but Trump is this child-like rebel, yelling about anything and everything that can draw him cheap applause and media attention. It is a formula that he has stuck to, and it has obviously gotten him very far - much farther than almost anyone could have predicted. Certainly, I would not have believed it, and last year at this time, thought he would fade away well before Thanksgiving.
That did not happen.
So, the threat of Trump is real and, for his part, Bernie Sanders is urging his supporters not to vote for a third party option this November.
For that matter, ethicists are claiming that it is downright immoral to vote for your heart, to vote for a third party candidate.
I understand that on some level, and know that the threat of a Donald Trump presidency is real, and that Hillary Clinton is likely the better, more enlightened option.
Understood.
However, there is also this: Clinton has the political insider's connections, and she cannot be trusted with it. She has shown a hawkish tendency in the past, and has defense contractor ties to boot, making a war during her years in office (always assuming that she wins the election) seem likely.
Also, it seems that every election, we are told that this is the most important election in our lifetime, a real crossroads where America needs to choose. The urgency is incredible. I remember hearing that about the 1980 election (well, I remember it being said of the 1980 election later on, although I was admittedly too young to follow politics at all back then). More recently, that was said of the 1992 election, the 2000 election, the 2004 election, the 2008 election, and the 2012 election.
Now, this is the pivotal election of our lifetimes, once again. Four years ago, we could not have an elitist like Mitt Romney, who waved his hand dismissively at 47% of Americans who would never vote for him in a lifetime. Four years before that, it was basically an election on how much we needed to move away from the buffoonery of the Bush years. Four years before that, it was the same thing, only it was outright Bush that we were told would be back, if we once again voted for Ralph Nader (turns out, Bush won that election decisively anyway). And in 2000, it was the rich, entitled son of a former president (again, Bush) against the seemingly proper Al Gore.
It seems that every election cycle, the old arguments are recycled. Yes, we are told. We're with you. There should be better options for us in this election. These two candidates both suck, true. But we have to vote for the lesser of two evils, at least this time. And let's see if we can't do better next time. Maybe in the near future, we can get a viable third party or option. But for now, we need to keep the Republican contender (Reagan/Bush/McCain/Romney/Trump) out of office, or this country will pay a very serious price in the near future. Do you want that to happen? No? Then you need to suck it up, and vote for our guy. And we promise you that we will absolutely do better next time.
The only thing is, there never is a better option the next time.
I remember in 1992, which happened to be the first ever presidential election that I took part in and voted. I was supporting Tom Harkin of Iowa initially, because he seemed like the best option. But he was gone pretty quickly, and so I picked Paul Tsongas. He eventually lost, as well, which left the seemingly overly slick option of Bill Clinton, the consummate politician.
No, I did not care for Clinton at the time, and kind of grumbled when he became the official nominee. But I sucked it up and supported him. Then, the Democratic Convention was strong, Bill Clinton's election speech was brilliant (really, how can you top a closer like, "I still believe in a place called Hope."?), and the Democrats got a big bounce in the polls after that. The Democrats were finally going to win an election in my lifetime! Unreal!
It was so exciting! And then he got in, and nothing much happened. He had no spine. He did not do what he promised he would. It was a disappointment.
Still, in 1996, I was still fairly excited that my guy and my party was going to win reelection, and it seemed to be a sign of real changes.
In fact, nothing had changed and, in his second term, pretty much nothing would then, either. It was a bitter disappointment, and I felt disillusioned.
There is one thing that really bothers me about everyone urging me and other disillusioned and discontent Bernie Sanders to ignore how Hillary and the rest of the Democratic establishment cheated, and go ahead and vote for Hillary, and it is this: there is this perception in American politics that we have to pick our sides, Democrat or Republican, and then stick with this choice doggedly, come what may. Since our loyalties are to one or the other, it then becomes our job to criticize the other party at every opportunity, and to defend out party, and our party's presidential nominee (or sitting president, as the case may be) at every turn.
This seems very wrong to me. Frankly, I am not certain how party loyalty came to be more important in the United States then loyalty to country. It truly seems that many people feel that the country cannot exist, or at least cannot thrive, without one of the two major parties. And this is dangerous.
Once again, I find myself feeling a need to understand what patriotism seemed to imply when growing up, versus what it seems to mean to a lot of people today. Patriotism seems to me to be legitimate love of country, whereas here in America today, we seem to mistake it for two other things. The first would be outright nationalism, which is mindless flag waving and worship of national symbols, without as much concern towards what those symbols are actually supposed to represent. The second thing, which I already alluded to, is this absurd notion that the two major parties are it in America, that we have to go with one or the other, because doing anything else is, according to the conventional wisdom, a wasted vote. And what this translates to is that you condemn people from the other party, and you praise people from the party that you support. By extension, you ignore the less than savory facts about figures from your own party, much like supporters of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are doing now. Also, you exaggerate your candidate or elected official's accomplishments, so we get people now saying that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate ever for the presidency, or that Barack Obama truly ranks among the greatest presidents of all time.
Some people indeed are saying that he is one of the great ones, but that is not how I view his presidency at all. First of all, he swept into office on a mixture of bad times that proved profitable for the party out of power, like his was, as well as truly inspiring words, mixed with an image that he milked as much as possible so that he seemed to represent a young and idealistic spirit. Remember how optimistic people were when he was first elected, and how everyone seemed to think that this was going to change everything?
Not so much. In reality, his first term really resembled a third George W. Bush term much too closely for my tastes. There were a lot of things that he claimed he would do, and it seemed like he meant to follow up on none of them. No major action on climate change, like he had promised as a candidate. No end to either of the wars that the country was already fighting when it got into office, and in fact, he got us involved in Libya. No follow up on his promise to close Guantanamo Bay. No shift from the massive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that the Bush administration had absolutely insisted upon, despite how detrimental it proved to be to the economy.
In his second term, he started to do some better things. Yet, to me, he will always be the president who seemed to do little of what he promised during his first term, and who increased surveillance and drone attacks throughout his presidency. That, plus he basically gutted the constitutional right of habeas corpus early in 2013, granting the military the power to indefinitely arrest and hold American citizens at will. And let us not forget that throughout these past years, when he proudly proclaimed a solid economic recovery, the ones who truly bounced back were the very elites who nearly destroyed the economy in the first place. For the rest of us, virtually nothing. It was the same old same old, with the privileged few getting an unhealthy and disproportionate chunk of the advantages.
Some might say that is greatness, but not I. In fact, that feels like a presidency with a definite Clintonesque feel to it. A good presidency to make speeches about, and to recite facts that make you sound better. But the feel of the presidency was one that did not so much deliver on promises, and basically failed to fight for the working class, to work to save the middle class. The fact that he received the Nobel Peace Prize without hardly having done anything to deserve it adds to the feel that his success was almost undeserved. Last year, he earned the unique distinction of being the only Nobel Peace Prize winner to bomb another fellow winner of this highly prestigious award when he ordered a bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan, which had links to Doctors Without Borders, the winner of the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, like much of the rest of his presidency, his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize felt handed to him without his quite having done much of anything to warrant this. Personally, I believe that it was awarded to him based on what people hoped he would be, and wanted him to be, rather than what he was. If they understood better, or had any idea what his actual presidency would look like, he surely would not have gotten the award. Many people put themselves in serious danger and discomfort in trying to establish peace, while all this guy did was get elected into public office. He seemed to get this award because his name was now George W. Bush. Now that people know more about Barack Hussein Obama, would anyone seriously entertain giving him such a historic award? It seems doubtful.
And that, to me, sums up the Democrats. They cannot win elections, unless it is somebody like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Or perhaps now, Hillary Clinton. These are all people who seem to specialize in keeping things basically the same, in maintaining the status quo. They do just enough on paper to be able to make rousing speeches, but they offer nothing in the way of real, meaningful change. They barely make a real dent when it comes to action on climate change. But they sure do seem to enjoy the spotlight. They sure do love to deliver speeches that win them applause from their loyal fan base. These are the faces of the modern Democratic party, and they represent what the Democrats have now become. When the nation took a sharp right turn in the 1980's, the Democrats responded by doing the same, so that now, the Republicans look like what would be an extremist right wing fringe party, and the Democrats would look like a more traditional conservative party. Both of them are sponsored by the same big corporations, and if you think that this year's platform is very liberal, and a sign of things to come, keep in mind two things.
First, Hillary Clinton has a history of flip flopping on issues, which seems to be a proud tradition with the Clintons. As Bill Maher puts it (see link to article below), the Clintons "are never first" when it comes to being on the right side of issues, and according to him, they "triangulate" around an issue, waiting for others to basically popularize it and make it politically profitable, before they go ahead and champion the cause. Witness Hillary Clinton's opposition to raising the minimum wage, and then actively celebrating with Governor Andrew Cuomo once the minimum wage was raised in that state, as if she had been with this fight all along. Or you can take the Clinton's stance on gay marriage. Or Hillary's vote for the Iraq invasion, qualified of course by her criticisms of Bush's handling of the war, so she could perhaps have it both ways. That does not strike me as real leadership.
Secondly, despite all of the attacks on the big banks, the convention was held at the Wells Fargo Center, and the Democrats received a hell of a lot of funds from these big banks. Plus, they actively cheated to ensure that the real change maker option, Bernie Sanders, basically could not win. That is the reality of the Democratic party these days.
Frankly, it's hardly anything to really get excited about when their best justification for remaining is power is to just point at the other guy and tell us that if you, the voter, don't vote for them, that guy will get in. It's what they used in 2012, and basically, it's the same argument that they used when they were out of power back in 2004 and 2008, as well. For the most part, it has worked for them, as well. And it will continue to work so long as people always fall in line, out of fear of what will happen when the elitist guy from the other party (be it Bush, or McCain, or Romney, or now Trump) gets into office.
It will win them elections, sure. But does that make this a better country? And if you think about this and draw the same conclusion that I do, that it does not make America better, then ask yourself how we can ever break out of this absurd cycle.
That's the problem with voting for the Democrats in this election, and in elections past. Perhaps that is particularly poignant in this election, as it has been discovered that the Democrats cheated to keep Bernie out. It hardly seems possible that Hillary Clinton knew nothing about it, as she claims, especially when Debbie Wasserman-Schult outright said that Hillary had come to her and asked for her help, even while both of them knew that she was supposed to remain neutral. What kind of defense is trying to tell anyone who wants to discuss this matter to hush, now, because this hurts Hillary and helps Trump, and that would just be a nightmare, wouldn't it?
The thing is, whenever the Democrats are criticized for anything, they always recycle that same tired old argument. "Well, what do you want? That Republican to win? Because if you don't support us, that's exactly what's going to happen."
Can you blame the "Bernie or Bust" people for being sick and tired of hearing that, and so fed up with the rigged system that, for once, a lot of people really are not willing to cast their vote (or might I suggest, waste their vote) on the lesser of two evils yet again? And really, can you blame Bernie supporters for being patriotic enough to put party aside, and hold the flames to the feet of both presidential candidates, instead of just focusing on the one representing the other party? After all, their allegiance is to their country and what is best for it, rather than maintaining the well-oiled political machine to assure that "our side" wins. Some things are more important that party politics. In fact, I would venture to say that, in the grand scheme of things, a lot of considerations far outweigh party politics. So what does it say about this country that we collectively seem to have forgotten that simple lesson? Perhaps take a moment to stop criticizing "Bernie or bust" people, and listen to their legitimate concerns and criticism for a reminder of what true values can actually benefit the country as a whole, and not just the candidate of "our" party.
Sanders warns his supporters against choosing a third party by David Weigel July 26, 2016:
Ethicists say voting with your heart, without a care about the consequences, is actually immoral by Olivia Goldhill, July 26, 2016:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete