Voters Must Have the Courage to Change the Direction of the US

By | January 30, 2016

Voters have a clear choice in the 2016 election on the Democratic side.

Hillary Clinton – an establishment candidate bought and paid for by the Wall Street elite that has rigged the US economy for their benefit.

Bernie Sanders – a candidate that has been consistent in his fight against the Wall Street elite since the 70’s.

Hillary has moved further and further left to try to take the momentum Bernie is surging with. But Hillary has started to say that she is the pragmatic candidate. Why? Because she wants to throw a blanket on the Bern to put it out.

See, Hillary’s issue is that she wants everyone to realize that Bernie’s ideas are too radical. That we cannot do them. Talking to Lena Dunham, she told young women this:

Clinton went on to urge young women to not “get turned off by the negativity and nastiness that is unfortunately too much in our politics today.”

“You kind of can cut through that and say, look, I not only have a right, I have an obligation to make a choice. That’s part of the service I pay for living in our country. So I’m going to vote for X or Y. Not because I think that person is perfect, but it’s going to be better than the alternative. If you can’t get excited, be pragmatic and do it anyway,” Clinton said.

See, all you young people out there don’t have to be excited about a candidate. Just do what you have to do. Go in, hold your nose and pull that lever for her. She described herself as pragmatic when she stated in the first Democratic debate as, “I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”

See, Hillary wants you to think Bernie’s ideas are pie in the sky hopes.

But, let’s look at the New Deal from FDR. It was huge, it was sweeping and it was exactly what was needed. As he told the people of the nation:

Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth… I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people. This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.

This took courage. And at times it is pragmatic to take up the fight to do what is right. Right now we are again heading toward the nation becoming poorer and poorer, and as Roosevelt said, we the people “look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth.”

Why, because the wealth of the nation is inequitably being sucked up by the rich. The rich continue to enjoy the fruits of the wealthiest nation on Earth. But come here to Baltimore and I can show you places that you may not realize exist. Stark poverty of people forgotten and ignored by politicians an hour away. Or go to Detroit. Or go to any number of communities, rural or urban, and see what the policies in place now have wrought.

But, Hillary says, let’s be pragmatic. It’s too hard. It’s not realistic.

Why? Because Hillary is part of that elite. She went and spoke to them. She went and schmoozed with them. And not just in 2013. She just went a few days ago. In fact, here is a list of 31 since April of 2015 and scheduled through this coming February.

You cannot have courage to stand up to people and do the right thing when your pockets are weighed down with their donations.

The change Bernie is proposing would be paradigm shifting. Our country is currently oligarchic and its path is set to amass more and more wealth for its masters. Bernie wants to shift this to policies that bring the middle class back into the fold.

But, it’s going to take courage. Do not be bullied into believing that Hillary is the only choice. Be excited. Be courageous.

It’s going to be hard to stand up to those wanting to reel you back in and tell you that it’s too hard. The New York Times wants to do this:

The point is that while idealism is fine and essential — you have to dream of a better world — it’s not a virtue unless it goes along with hardheaded realism about the means that might achieve your ends. That’s true even when, like F.D.R., you ride a political tidal wave into office. It’s even more true for a modern Democrat, who will be lucky if his or her party controls even one house of Congress at any point this decade.

Sorry, but there’s nothing noble about seeing your values defeated because you preferred happy dreams to hard thinking about means and ends. Don’t let idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence.

In other words, don’t get your hopes up. Be happy with what you get. Screw that. Robert Reich agrees. He wrote, in response to the NYT pundit:

The real choice isn’t “pragmatism” or “idealism.” It’s either allowing these trends to worsen, or reversing them. Inequality has reached levels last seen in the era of the “robber barons” in the 1890s. The only truly pragmatic way of reversing this state of affairs is through a “political revolution” that mobilizes millions of Americans.

Is such a mobilization possible? One pundit recently warned Democrats that change happens incrementally, by accepting half loaves as being better than none. That may be true, but the full loaf has to be large and bold enough in the first place to make the half loaf meaningful. And not even a half loaf is possible unless or until America wrests back power from the executives of large corporations, Wall Street bankers and billionaires who now control the bakery.

See, the issue is that we have no real choice at this point. We live in an era where our oligarchs have given us an illusion of choice. They are pushing hard on us to take their choices. And if she loses, there are already people talking about Democrats replacing her, forgetting Bernie is in the race. The Blaze (yes, I know) pointed out this discussion on Morning Joe:

“If Hillary loses in Iowa to Bernie Sanders, a guy that most in the Democratic establishment don’t think she should be close to right now, and then she loses in New Hampshire, you have Mr. Biden, Gore, Kerry who start moving and start saying we need to get into the race, if she loses these two states,” Scarborough said.

“Those close to John Kerry and Joe Biden have said specifically that, if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire, they are going to have to take a much closer look — and the entire Democratic Party — and then expect Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren or John Kerry and Elizabeth Warren to have further discussions about running for the nominations,” Scarborough said, indicating that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) is being discussed as a possible running mate for one or more potential Clinton replacement candidates.

Even this is a ploy to dampen the enthusiasm for Bernie. They are scared and spreading fear. We must be courageous.

Related Post

  • Alex Berkman

    Well done. In solidarity.