With the Democrats’ nomination of
Hillary Clinton, it’s official. In
November, the American people will confront one of the least appetizing choices
in our history.
In Donald Trump, the nation’s
most ignorant, bigoted, and antediluvian elements have, at last, their tribune. The enthusiastic Trump voter, if justifiably
angry, is also – at heart – a troglodyte.
The Tea Party element, having destroyed two thoroughly decent and eminently
qualified candidates – Senator McCain and Governor Romney – by forcing them into their
procrustean mold, have finally gotten their man.
Needless to say, many millions of
intelligent, thoughtful Americans will flip a lever or punch a chad for Donald
Trump – without having their hearts in it.
But those who vote enthusiastically for the Republican nominee, by their
very existence, call into question the idea of universal suffrage as a fit way to of
govern a great republic.
Then there is Hillary Clinton, a woman of formidable abilities
who was certainly, in her youth, a genuine patriot devoted to worthy
causes. It is an interesting exercise to
imagine that earlier Hillary, formed by different experiences, as a sort of
ideal leader in a system not so dependent upon personality and the ability to
educate and mobilize the citizenry – a parliamentary system, perhaps.
But the idealistic young Hillary Rodham lived a long time ago,
and observant citizens can hardly be blamed for concluding that, as Mrs.
Clinton, she has long since gone over to the Dark Side. Over the decades, she has made one Faustian
bargain after another – almost certainly beginning with her decision to marry a
thoroughly charming, utterly amoral, and infinitely ambitious young man from
Arkansas.
She showed her true colors in 1998, when she “stood by her man” and did not – in the family conversations which determined whether Bill Clinton would attempt to outlast the Lewinsky scandal – insist that her husband resign. Most Americans have yet to grasp the full significance of that decision.
She showed her true colors in 1998, when she “stood by her man” and did not – in the family conversations which determined whether Bill Clinton would attempt to outlast the Lewinsky scandal – insist that her husband resign. Most Americans have yet to grasp the full significance of that decision.
To be sure, President
Clinton could – and should – have overcome a mere episode of extramarital
fellatio. These things happen.
But his subsequent efforts at evasion and cover-up - climaxed by a finger-wagging, direct denial to the American people - were the moral equivalent of Watergate. At that moment, Clinton lost our trust, and should have resigned. Instead, he lumbered on, the lamest of lame ducks. As a result, he gave the Republican Party the moral high ground in the Election of 2000 – and denied Al Gore the opportunity to spend two years as President, consolidating his position for that supremely important contest.
American liberals are wont to blame Ralph Nader for George W. Bush’s unfortunate election in 2000. They should consider the role played by Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose decision to hold on to office – almost certainly part of the master plan now playing out – put family ahead of party, principle and country.
But his subsequent efforts at evasion and cover-up - climaxed by a finger-wagging, direct denial to the American people - were the moral equivalent of Watergate. At that moment, Clinton lost our trust, and should have resigned. Instead, he lumbered on, the lamest of lame ducks. As a result, he gave the Republican Party the moral high ground in the Election of 2000 – and denied Al Gore the opportunity to spend two years as President, consolidating his position for that supremely important contest.
American liberals are wont to blame Ralph Nader for George W. Bush’s unfortunate election in 2000. They should consider the role played by Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose decision to hold on to office – almost certainly part of the master plan now playing out – put family ahead of party, principle and country.
For this, many – including this writer – will never forgive
them.
Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign for the Democratic
nomination has demonstrated – if further proof were needed – the determination
of the Clintons to wield power. The
ruthlessness with which they crushed the popular – and genuinely progressive – Sanders
movement provides further evidence, if any is needed, that in their minds, the Clintons come first – before party, principle, and country.
Between Trump and Clinton, Americans have a choice of two
personalities – one who looks very much like the Devil of our imaginations –
the other whose husband looks a great deal more like the Devil (if he exists)
would choose to look, and who herself bears all the signs of a Faustus.
But this is merely the personal
choice – and choosing a president involves much more than personalities. Presidents do not govern alone, and – for all
the hyperventilation on the Left about potential dictators – they cannot do
whatever they choose.
We have a
Constitution, and the legal restraints imposed by that document’s checks and
balances are bolstered by two centuries’ worth of precedents and a massive,
unofficial power structure which is, for the present, controlled by the wealth
of large corporations and super-rich individuals.
The real choice, this year, is
not whether Clinton or Trump will “run the country” – but whether a corrupt establishment will continue to do so under the cover of a Democratic or Republican administration. In many ways, that is no choice at all, since both parties are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the international corporate class.
In other words, there is no real
choice at all. Whether Mr. Trump or Mrs.
Clinton wins, real power will remain where it has long rested – in the hands of
a corporate kleptocracy.
There is, however, the real
possibility that this election will call into being a genuine political
revolution of some kind. Two significant
third-party candidates, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, offer mainstream
Republicans and angry Sanders supporters a valid option for expressing their discontent.
But they do more. By actively campaigning for these two
candidates, unhappy citizens – especially those blessed with youth, energy and
idealism – have the chance to come together, work together, and begin to organize for the future.
Though it is all but impossible
that 2016 could see the election of a third-party candidate, should either or
both of the Johnson and Stein campaigns attract significant grassroots support,
this could be the year that a genuine political uprising begins the work of over-turning
the entrenched establishment.
This, to me, seems to be the ultimate question of 2016. In a sense, the winning candidate will almost
certainly represent continuity – continued Democratic and Republican obeisance to the power of
corporate capital, no matter who wins, and continued Republican migration toward the
incoherence of right-wing populism, should be winner be Mr. Trump.
But the possibility of that meaningful
alternatives could arise – supported by significant numbers of motivated people – marks a potential departure from the dead hand which has gripped the Republic for the past thirty-six
years.
Those are the stakes. Faites vos jeux!
No comments:
Post a Comment