Skip to content

Wot’s It All About, B, H, & D? (2)

May 8, 2016

So this election is about the economic wellbeing of hundreds of millions of Americans who at this moment have been so used and abused by extraordinarily rich persons that they are sorely ailing. For a Democrat my age (j’ai 76 trombones), it is hard not to think of FDR. Then it’s hard not to see the Clintonite, New Democrat, DLC, Third Way triangulation as anything but a betrayal of the party and of all those millions who have been preyed upon.

After the conception of Drumpf, in 1980, when Reagan played the race card of the Republican southern strategy to sucker white folks of the working class into thinking that he and his party cared about their wellbeing, the Democratic party failed to fight with all its heart to bring those voters back to the vision of FDR. In 1992, under new ownership, the party chose to turn further away from those Americans and to ally itself with the power of Big Money. That was a colossal failure of imagination (an important motif of this novel).

Big Money, Big Dog rule in a democracy is minority rule. The Republicans have mastered it; and now, with the capture of the Democratic party by Big Money, Dems too are narrowing the number of Americans who vote, so as to better control the electorate, just as the super rich narrow the number of persons who share adequately in the national wealth so that they can more easily control the entire population.

The interests of extraordinarily wealthy and powerful persons do not coincide with the interests of the people. They just don’t. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that an alliance with the super rich, in government, can produce good governance, of by and for. It just won’t.

II.  Hillary’s lateness in campaigning on the economic issues that B has championed throughout his career, the need for Progressives to push her to the left, her preference for “incremental” change that supposedly is more workable (i.e. more workable within her restrictive frame of politics) than is Bernie’s down-to-earth urgency, and her career-long ties to the wealthy persons who rig the system, establish her as the candidate of the economic and political status quo.

Thus she is the preferred candidate of many voters who are sufficiently satisfied with their material circumstances that they can support a continuation of Clinton/Obama economic policies, and/or vote mainly or solely on the basis of gender.

The election of a black president was a revolutionary moment. An argument can be made that the election of a woman to the presidency would be, in and of itself, such a revolutionary act that it trumps all other proposed actions of change; it would even lead to economic fairness and redistribution. However, I see the status quo as consisting in very large part of maintaining the control of society by the Alpha Dogs of Wealth; and I believe that the economic policies of Obama/Clinton, New Democrats both, will maintain that control.

In that regard, my questions are: What would the equal empowerment of women consist of, and would a Hillary or a Bernie presidency be most likely to bring that about? I think the key is the redistribution of the power of money, and thus of ownership of one’s material wellbeing, including one’s body.

Put money in their pockets. Done right, it’s therapeutic. It’s good for the soul.

I think the same about the empowerment of people of color.

(In III or IV or both, I’ll think more about sexism and racism, in relation to class.)

But where can that money come from? The Mad Dogs of Wealth have it, and they must be forced to fund the revolution. They won’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts, whatever the gender of the president. Therefore our current situation requires more than an incrementalism that does not threaten the economic status quo. The staus quo must be threatened. Whether the next president is a person of the gender of a Bernie, or the gender of an Elizabeth Warren, the Mad Dogs must be brought to heel.

Black Americans, in large numbers, have not become economic owners of their lives as a restlt of the election of Obama. But do they now have significantly more psychological self-ownership and power, and will that produce economic power? I hope so.

Would the election of Hillary do the same for women? If she becomes President, then I certainly hope so.

But I think that a vote for Hillary because of satisfaction with the status quo is another failure of the imagination.

[2 b continued: Drumpf, complicating factors, and a return to first things. Page (1) of this episode.]

  1. Wow, well stated. You should run for pres😊. Bernie would be proud as I am. It has been interesting hearing the differing comments from the various stances of the multiple sides of this current political situation. When I can actually stomach listening (which has to be in short spurts) I fear one “side” of this conundrum surrounding the “human species” is rearing it’s ugly head once again. There is such beauty on the many other “sides”. Hope springs eternal, I hope.

    Rob Reiner was perfect on Morning Joe about the racism of the T’s “pied pipered” followers. The response was classic. There is so much denial or maybe just plain ignorance, or in Joe Scarborough’s case one could add worry about ratings.

    I talked with Andrew yesterday. He is also a Sanders follower. He was telling me about the law they passed in Maine ridding the state of its super pac electoral votes. They will go to the winner of that state which would be Sanders? Let’s hope many or all states follow.

    “The show must go on”. Il on va. Sent from my iPhone


Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Wot’s It All About, B, H, & D? (1) | tomkoontz

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: