Monday, 13 July 2015

Sanders is pseudo opposition for Hillary's coronation

Cynical Democratic Party Leaders Will Say Anything You Wanna Hear For Your Votes Or Your Cash
by Bruce A. Dixon

So why is the Democratic National Committee, thoroughly committed to the Hillary Clinton campaign featuring Bernie Sanders in its fundraising emails? How can the California Democratic party raise money pretending to oppose the president on TPP without even pointing in his direction, let alone mentioning his name? Are they really that cynical? Are Democrat donors that gullible?

Last month, Talking Points Memo noted that the Democratic National Committee or DNC, the recipients of tens of millions of dollars in legal bribes (campaign contributions, they're called under US law) from Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Pharma, Wall Street, the military contractors and more every year, the DNC was featuring Bernie Sanders on the mass fundraising mailings it sent to thousands of likely Democrat donors.

At first glance this does seem quite strange. While Bernie Sanders does talk and vote like many other pro-war liberal Democrats, while official Democrats across the country think he's Democrat enough to run in Democratic primaries and caucuses, and while Bernie's even pledged to support the eventual Democratic party nominee, pointing out to George Stephanopoulos that he does that every election anyhow, Bernie Sanders describes himself as a socialist, and talks about what he calls “a political revolution.”

So what's happening here? There's no question that the Democratic National Committee is the subservient tool of its ruling class donors, and of their candidate Hillary Clinton. TPM's Josh Marshall explains that although Hillary remains the official candidate of the DNC and its donors, they need an official opposition to make the year-long run up to the Democratic nominating convention a year from now look less like a coronation.

Bernie's presence, and his half-hearted pro-war brand of socialism, as Paul Street also explained in Black Agenda Report a few weeks ago doesn't further any “political revolution” at all. What it does is make Hillary's absolutely certain Democratic party nomination look almost legit, as though she emerged from some kind of process where the Democrats' base voters actually get to have their say. It makes sense, if only a profoundly dishonest kind of sense.

But the cynicism of corporate Democrats runs much deeper than this. Immediately after President Obama muscled fast track legislation needed to pass his so-called trade bills though Congress without the bother of legislators being able to amend them, or even see what's in them, the California Democratic party was emailing thousands of likely small and medium sized donors with the promise that it would “continue the fight” against “unfair trade agreements” like the TPP.

The California Democratic Party being effectively the local branch of the DNC chose not to remind prospective donors that their Democratic president forced TPP's fast-track provision through Congress, that their Democratic president is hounding, harassing convening secret grand juries and jailing on espionage and terrorism charges Wikileaks and other persons for revealing parts of the so-called trade agreements, which are really corporate power grabs.

The California Democratic Party isn't about to fight the Democrat in the White House over TPP, the privatization of schools, cutting the military budget, rolling back the prison state or anything else. Their feeble and hypocritical pretense of opposing TPP is aimed at the most deluded and gullible among their donor base, in the same spirit that the DNC uses Bernie Sanders to supplement fundraising. It's a measure of how uninformed and stupid Democratic party leaders on the state and national level imagine Democratic donors and voters to be, another marker of the boundless contempt that Democratic party leaders have for ordinary Democrats, and ordinary people.

Also, read comment nr 1 of this article, which I'll quote here:

Martin Luther King had another description for the kind of people described in this article, or "moderates" as he called them in 1963. In his letter from the Birmingham jail, he called them "worse" than the worst racists. The kind of people who make a pretense of being against the ideals of those who relentlessly mistreat others as subhuman, but when it comes time to actually do something to bring it to an end, they go out of their way to police everyone else into leaving things the way the are -with comments like, "it is not time," or "it is unrealistic."
Since the onset of the Nader-haters in 2000, these people are constantly screaming "you are causing the republicans to win" at anyone who dares to question the wisdom of giving eternal life to the 1%. And the inevitable side effect of giving eternal life to the 1% is also eternal life for the republican party -as the re-election of "our nation's first black president" clearly shows (not least with his service to oil investers such as Koch brothers who then in turn have more money to fund republican candidates)
I still struggle with how to word this better, but it is pretty clear even for those who refuse to acknowledge that the 1% is worse than the republicans and controls both parties, that we can't "defeat the republicans" without also defeating the democrats.



  1. Eye opening. Thanks for this post Serban.

    1. It was very eye opening to me too. I'm done with politics (been screwed over too many times by those I supported)... I've embraced philosophical pessimism.