December 16, 2015

The worst party vs. the weak party

Sam Smith

Watching one of the scariest debates in American politics since the Confederate secession, I found myself wondering whether my metaphor of today’s elite and medieval castle days still held. My theory was that – led by Republicans and other corporatists – the most powerful in our country had more wealth and authority than ever before but simultaneously were so scared of the effects of this fact that they had to live behind high walls and large moats, ones that eventually would be transgressed by things like catapults.

My thought that while those of us who live beyond the moats lacked power, we still could have some peace and that our culture might survived for hundreds of years, not unlike the repeatedly invaded but still traditional Umbria in Italy.

But last night I realized that any one of these incompetent, irrational, irresponsible creatures would also have control over our nuclear weaponry and that their narcissism and a machismo that would be laughable in a bar but not in real life might endanger not only the power-deluded, say at the World Trade Center, but my own home a mere 336 miles away.

None of us are safe. We are facing the most dangerous election in a century and half (and that one only brought us a civil – rather than a global – conflict). Those running on the Republican side would, if elected, not only endanger global peace, but our environment; civil liberties; the rights of women, ethnic and sexual minorities; the working class and the economy in general. Every positive measure passed at least since the New Deal would be at risk. And the media won’t tell you this and, in fact, will encourage some the madness just as CNN’s war lord Wolf Blitzer did in the latest debate.

Further, there is another danger that is hardly mentioned. The main Democratic alternative, Hillary Clinton, has at best only a modest lead over her opponents , yet is particularly vulnerable to a predictable highly organized attack on her honesty and past behavior.

The customary liberals’ response – to ignore or ridicule these attacks – works fine with those of their ilk but that’s hardly the case in the rest of America that is willing to even give Donald Trump and Ted Cruz a second thought.

Here are three examples that have gotten no attention in the mainstream press. Before you dismiss them, remember that John Edwards’ campaign was successfully destroyed beginning with a personal scandal story in the National Enquirer:
- NY Post: A woman at a Hillary Clinton campaign event in New Hampshire on dared to ask the Democratic presidential candidate if she believed the charges made by women who say her husband raped or harassed them.

- Radar: According to The National Enquirer, Hillary’s political enemies are planning to unleash a $500 million campaign to destroy her credibility— and her relationship with Vince Foster will be probed… According to the book, Bill knew about his wife's infidelities, but "never confronted her," instead indulging in his own affairs

  -National Enquirer - Stone claimed Chelsea was conceived during Hillary’s secret affair with disgraced Clinton crony Webster Hubbell, a lawyer and once close Clinton family friend
Even if much of this Is false, the key political point is that it is already out there, it is only going to keep growing, and the Democrats and their supporters are ignoring it.

Thus we face a choice between the most destructive party in over a century and a half and a party whose leading candidate is strikingly vulnerable but whose members won’t face the fact.


Anonymous said...

The worry that the Republicans will get us into a nuclear war worries not only Americans but the Russians and Chinese as well. These two nations increasingly recognize the danger posed by our increasingly delusional "leadership."

This could cause any number of things including a first strike against America.

Seriously, what would you do if you had a neighbor who was heavily armed, delusional, had a history of extreme violence and those "in authority" were turning a blind eye to the situation? If a desperate move is your only option, you make that move.

I go to bed each night wondering if I will wake up to a blinding flash.

Anonymous said...

I don’t disagree with you that the rhetoric heard in the republican debates is scary. No matter who wins, young people will continue going to war to fight and die for economic interests most will never share in and the super wealthy will continue to collect wealth until what is left for circulation among the other 99% will be fought over in class wars created by the democrats. My question to you and others is why do you defend the democrats and in particular Hillary Clinton? Do you really believe there is a difference? Do you know nothing of the Clinton history? They win by segregating people. Bill claimed to be the first black president. He threw his hat in the African-American camp and made promises. He didn’t come through on any, but he gave a nibble here and a nibble there and kept talking the talk and he got the vote. Then after staying as long in the white house as he legally could he left office and immediately he and Hillary became multi millionaires. Meanwhile, African-Americans gained little if anything from the Clintons, nor did Whites, Latinos, Asians, and any other population group. But within those groups millionaires were made, those who took the loot and ran with the Clintons. The Bushes were no better, maybe worse, but they had been doing it longer and had more experience public theft. Bill’s philosophy was, tell them a lie, and if you get caught tell the another lie. You’ll eventually hit a nerve that makes them happy and the ignorant American will forget the earlier lies. That was his entire strategy in public office.

So while I agree with you the people on the stage are scary and I’ll be no better off with any of them, I certainly will not be better off with Hillary. Like Bill, she lies, then lies to cover the lies and all the while people like you are cheering her on...why?! Are you taking the ‘lessor of two evils’ philosophy?! Is there something else to the mystique of the Clinton’s that’s kept a secret? You’re a white guy...number one on her list of targets to destroy...unless you have a lot of money to put into their pockets somehow. And if African-Americans buy the phony southern accent and pretentious displays at black churches acting like she’s saving the sinner and there to give every thing every one has ever wanted but been denied by republicans; well, it’s like the old saying goes... ‘you get what you pay for.’ And you paid for a Clinton and you’re getting a ‘Howdy, thank ya’ll a bunch’, then they’re off to their Georgetown mansion or Chappaqua, NY mansion or wherever they are playing at. And you can bet wherever it is, there will be republicans there playing too.

So if you’re going to sing the Clinton’s praises as the savior of the poor, at least be honest enough to admit you know they’re no good and you’re transfixed or bewitched by them. Or is it possible you are among the insiders that profit somehow. At the end of the proverbial day, there’s not a bit of difference between a democrat and a republican. The rest of us 99% lose no matter who wins.

Margaret Flowers said...

It feels like every election is considered the 'most important election ever.' I gave up voting based on fear for either candidate from the corporate Republican and Democratic parties. I vote my values and that means Green. I will vote for Dr. Jill Stein in 2016.

Anonymous said...

Sam, you should print Rob Hager's recent blog in Huff Post that the poll numbers show that Bernie would win the general with Independent support. Hillary does not attract Independents and could lose. There's more to the article, like the Dems are far outnumbered by Independents but are playing the spoiler against them to the GOP's advantage. The contest is whether independents will get Dem this one time for Bernie, like the boomers who got clean for Gene.