Sanders v. Clinton = Democracy v. Oligarchy

Sanders v. Clinton = Democracy v. Oligarchy


By angel d  





Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.

Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary.[1] Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) " a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."[2]

According to political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements:

1.    A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.
2.    The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.
3.    Protection of the human rights of all citizens.
4.    A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[3]

The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[4] which was found from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power" or "rule", in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratía) "rule of an elite".

While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically.[5] The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.

(Both of the above definitions are from Wikipedia.)

Friends (and frenemies), I believe we are truly at a precipice with regard to the future of democracy in America.  How much money are the Koch brothers sinking into this election cycle? MILLIONS.  $889 million, in fact.  To put it in perspective, over 15 years, $700 million dollars were spent to fund the New Horizon mission to Pluto (and beyond).

Eight-hundred and eighty-nine million dollars can buy a lot of political access, yes?  And yet, for all their money, the Kochs really don't have a candidate to back now, do they?  Lucky for us that party is in full-implosion mode and I have no doubt that either of our candidates could handily beat any one of the Republican clowns, hands down.  

Oh, speaking of our two candidates, there is the issue of one of them accepting millions in corporate cash, most notably, from Wall Street.  You may recall the "savvy businessmen" of the "Street," the guys who through all sorts of unethical machinations managed to not only tank the economy, but then get rewarded for it in the form of tax-payer funded bailouts.  It was the biggest heist in human history.  People lost their jobs, their homes, their retirement savings accounts.  Some people never recovered.  Our middle class is decimated.  Yet the financial sector was rewarded, rather than punished, for their crimes.  That is a tragedy that will resonate for years to come.

Many of us were appalled by the wanton greed of sociopaths like Jamie Dimon, to name only one, and many of us suffered as our treasury was drained, our homes repossessed, our jobs gone, and those of us lucky to get back to work are making pretty much the same we were making before the economy tanked, while rent, food, utilities and everything else rise steadily upward.  No ifs, ands or buts about it, they are criminals and should have been locked up.  The banks that were too big to fail then are even bigger now.  The banksters are richer than they were before the economy tanked.

And that leads me to the next point I'd like to bring up.  I know it's a sore spot for some of you, but Hillary Clinton, in some form or other, has accepted piles of Wall Street cash.  Just take a look at the list of her donors at OpenSecrets.Org.  Citigroup is number one, next comes Goldman Sachs, the mega law firm DLA Piper, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley.  In that order, mixed in with a few other corporate donors and huge law firms we also have Lehman Brothers and Credit Suisse Group.

Granted, the sums aren't nearly as astronomical as the money the Kochs are sinking into the insanes on the right, but it's significant.  It's also significant to note that Bernie Sanders, who speaks out against the corrupting influence of cash in politics (and boy, do I love it when he names names), does not accept cash from Wall Street.  Why?  Because he does not want to be beholden to them.  In fact, he wants to break up the too-big-to-fail banks.  And I think that's admirable, good and right.

If you care anything at all about democratic principles, and I don't mean just the Democratic party but democratic principles, as in what it means to be a democracy, then perhaps it would be prudent to think twice about supporting the candidate who accepts piles of cash from the Wall Street criminal class.  Maybe, the guy you aren't supporting, the one who refuses to take Wall Street money on principle, deserves another look with regard to your support.  

Oligarchy and Democracy are Not Compatible Constructs

Does voting for a candidate who accepts millions of dollars from the criminals that decimated the backbone of our nation, the middle class align with your core beliefs?

Does supporting a candidate who serves the interests of the oligarchy align with your world view?  

If you answered yes to either of the above questions, then I daresay, you cannot expect people to believe you also support democratic principles, as the two concepts don't synch up.  If you support the oligarch over the principled candidate, you can't have it both ways and say "I'm progressive!  I'm a liberal!" if you are voting against the very principles of democracy, as outlined above.  Well, technically you can, but no one will believe you, or take you seriously.  

I don't have to respect your choice if I feel that your choice is detrimental to me, my family, to American democracy, our country and this planet.  You are not only voting against your own best interest (unless, of course, you're of that ilk yourself), but you are voting against MY best interests and my child's best interests, and I'm not going to be all nice about it and bend over backwards to treat your decision with kid gloves when it's the wrong decision.  

On the one hand, you have an experienced statesman who, by all accounts, if we are to believe the words coming out of his mouth when he speaks at his rallies, wants people to take matters, to take democracy, back into their own hands, where it rightly belongs.  For Sanders understands what an elected official truly is, a servant of the people.  We pay our servants at that level quite nicely, they get round the clock protection, a big mansion to live in, the best health care money can buy for the rest of their lives, even while so many of us go without, or with plans that don't really do much in the face of catastrophic injury or illness.  In return, we expect them to serve us, not the sociopaths on Wall Street, or any of the corporate donors who expect something for their money.

For just as the Kochs aren't giving hundreds of billions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts, neither is Wall Street bestowing millions upon Clinton because they're just so liberal and progressive and seek nothing in return.  If you believe that, you are incredibly naïve, and if you don't believe it and still support it, then you are not to be trusted with the power to vote against the interests of the vast majority of this country.

There was a recent diary comparing the stark differences between Bernie and Hillary encapsulated in a single day in New York.  Bernie marching with Verizon employees striking for fairness, and Hillary accepting $2,700 from the likes of Martha Stewart who, as you may recall, was convicted of insider trading (although that never stopped me from buying an issue of "Living" once in awhile, she does have some good recipes), and fashion designers.  The difference between the two candidates is clear and as stark as the difference between Democracy and Oligarchy.

These are not "normal" times and this is not time to fall in line behind the pushers of the status quo.  Humanity may very likely face its extinction event within a generation or two, our government has become so corrupt it's barely recognizable as a democracy anymore, and the people are weary of the same old, same old.  Trust me, America neither wants nor needs another Clinton or another Bush in the White House.  Been there, done that.

We are being given the choice to vote for someone we've been waiting for since, oh gosh, since we found out Obama was not the change we were hoping for.  He was better than Bush on some things, but he was also appointing Wall Street hucksters to advise him, and even after their perfidy became known, he referred to them as savvy businessmen.  On matters of the encroaching oligarchy, and letting the Wall Street criminals get away with destroying tens of thousands of American lives, yes, he did disappoint.

I sincerely hope that the more thoughtful Clinton supporters among you rethink your vote for Wall Street.  You really don't want to have to carry that around with you for the rest of your life, do you?  When we were at the tipping point and had the opportunity to turn things around, we went backwards instead.  

I believe that a lot of her support comes from people who sincerely think that she is a safer bet against Republicans.  I say, malarkey, because not only do the polls indicate Sanders has a better chance of beating any Republican currently running, but he has also enthused a large swathe of Americans who, heretofore, for whatever reason, didn't vote, or didn't engage in politics.  Perhaps they felt like six of one, half a dozen of the other, either way they are screwed.

Does backing the Wall Street candidate align with democratic principles?

I believe in democratic principles, and I am afraid of the encroaching oligarchy which means that, as a people and as a nation, we have surrendered our power to those who not only do not deserve it, but should be completely stripped of it.  We will have lost our voice, and the principles upon which our democracy is based.  I also believe that if we elect a politician in the service of the oligarchs, whether it is one of the Republcians or Hillary Clinton, then we might as well kiss democracy good bye for good.  

I know, sometimes I sound PUMAish when I say "I'll never vote for Clinton!" but really, I'm being a Democrat who wants to vote for someone who espouses democratic principles.  When I see Wall Street buying Clinton's favor with OUR money, it makes me ill.  It tells me that our political process has become so corrupt, that no one in good conscience could continue to support it.  Okay, that was harsh, there are a lot of people of conscience who are misled or browbeaten into submission by the pushers of the status quo who use fear as a cudgel.  

Political corruption is corrupt, no matter which party engages in it.  Corruption is bad, it's bad for people like us, and by us, I don't mean the "limousine liberals" and the Wall Street Democrats, I mean the 99% of us who don't have $2,700 to buy access to a candidate.  I have made the decision to not participate in this corruption any longer.  Therefore, I will not cast a vote for Clinton should she win the nomination.  I'm not going to not vote, I'll probably look at other candidates, but most likely, I will write in Senator Bernie Sanders.  I'm not taking the ridiculous pledge.  Goldman Sachs, Walmart, Monsanto, the MIC -- they are not getting my vote.  Ever.  They are wicked, they are unjust, they are cruel and do not have your best interest in that place where a heart should be.  

Because I support and believe in democratic principles, I cannot participate in the corruption in which Clinton is mired and honestly call myself liberal or progressive.

Won't you join us in this much-needed and long-awaited political revolution spearheaded by Bernie Sanders?  Won't you join us on the right side of history?  We're the guys in the white hats, and we don't take money from the bad guys.  We'd love to have you aboard.  Peace.