Amid the Crowing of the GOP and Clinton, Sanders Is on the Rise
Published on
Monday, October 05, 2015
by
Truthdig
Amid the Crowing of the GOP and Clinton, Sanders Is on the Rise
by
Robert Scheer
The Vermont senator's success is not a result of charisma or image
manipulation, both of which he quite properly treats as dangerous
distractions from what ails us, but rather his deeply informed critique of
the bipartisan policies of Presidents Clinton and Bush that have brought so
much misery in their wakes. (Photo: Bernie Sanders/Facebook)
How easy it is to mock the Republican candidates. They're the gang in the
clown car climbing all over each other to offer a reactionary message of
disarray that has all but destroyed the chances of the Bush family dynasty
continuing. But isn't that a grand achievement for the democratic process?
Why continue a political legacy that has failed in so many dramatic ways to
serve the needs of the American public, instead giving us irrational but
high-tech wars dealing death from the skies, heartless banking deregulation
boosting the fortunes of the rich at the expense of the vast majority, and a
vast state apparatus of surveillance enforced by the imprisonment of any
whistleblowers who dare reveal its existence?
Good riddance to bad rubbish, except that the alternatives of Trump, Fiorina
or Carson only make Jeb Bush look stunningly reasonable in comparison. The
other problem is that Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate, is
not fundamentally different from the scion of the Bush dynasty. She is
instead a perfect stand-in for Jeb Bush if, as appears likely, the
Republican Party should reject him for the sin, as with House Speaker John
Boehner, of appearing too moderate. For Democrats, appearing moderate is
quite easy, as Clinton proved as a senator and secretary of state: Just
carry water for the military-industrial complex and Wall Street while
pretending to be concerned about the ordinary folks who suffer from those
costly policies.
Clinton, in rhetoric and action, will never allow a Republican opponent to
appear more hawkish than herself. In the general election, she will burnish
her record of support for every bit of military folly from George W.'s
invasion of Iraq to her own engineering of the campaign to overthrow all
secular dictators in the Middle East who have proved to be an inconvenience
to the Saudi theocracy.
During her tenure in the Obama administration, Clinton, by her own frequent
boastful admission, was the hawk in the Cabinet pressuring the president to
be even more aggressive in his drone assassinations and murderous air wars,
which have destabilized the region and created what the pope recently termed
the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War.
But it is the still troubled economy that will dominate the election, and it
is the failure of the Democratic Party establishment-now represented
singularly by Clinton-to deal with the lingering recession that explains the
startling rise of Bernie Sanders as a viable candidate.
The Vermont senator's success is not a result of charisma or image
manipulation, both of which he quite properly treats as dangerous
distractions from what ails us, but rather his deeply informed critique of
the bipartisan policies of Presidents Clinton and Bush that have brought so
much misery in their wakes.
What makes Sanders appear less formidable to the party bosses is that
although he is now matching Hillary Clinton in the all-important fundraising
category, he has received mainly small contributions. That and the fact that
his positions on health care and banking regulation take on entrenched
moneyed interests rather than cravenly cater to them.
Whereas Sanders supports the efforts by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. John
McCain to restore the Glass-Steagall barrier against merging commercial and
investment banking, Clinton still insists her husband did the right thing in
signing off on the reversal of the sensible banking practice initiated by
Franklin Delano Roosevelt to prevent another Great Depression.
A year after he approved the destruction of the Glass-Steagall Act, Bill
Clinton signed off on an even more egregious enabler of banking greed called
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that certainly enhanced Hillary's
future Senate fundraising prospects. Even then-Rep. Bernie Sanders fell for
that one. Only four members of the House, Ron Paul among them, had the
courage and wisdom to vote against legislation that banned any regulation of
the newfangled default swaps and collateralized debt obligations that came
close to wrecking the world's economy.
Hopefully Sanders has learned from that moment not to trust the Clintons to
guard against the chicanery of bankers. He should challenge Hillary's
claimed concern for the well-being of black and brown people, who right now
are her advantage in polling. As the St. Louis Federal Reserve recently
reported, even college-educated minorities were particularly devastated by
the mortgage scams made legal through Bill Clinton's banking
"modernization."
What voters of every racial or ethnic group should understand is that the
Clinton gift-worth billions to the banking industry-robbed all working
Americans of the opportunity to improve their lot, as shown by the
astounding growth in wealth inequality since the Clinton presidency.
Are we really ready for another Clinton?
Copyright 2015 Truthdig
Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San
Francisco Chronicle.
Share This Article
. 46
Tweet
. 2.02k
Share
. 9
Pin
. 0
Share
. 0
Share
. 0
Mail
. 0
Share
Amid the Crowing of the GOP and Clinton, Sanders Is on the Rise
Published on
Monday, October 05, 2015
by Truthdig
Amid the Crowing of the GOP and Clinton, Sanders Is on the Rise
by
Robert Scheer
. 10 Comments
.
. The Vermont senator's success is not a result of charisma or image
manipulation, both of which he quite properly treats as dangerous
distractions from what ails us, but rather his deeply informed critique of
the bipartisan policies of Presidents Clinton and Bush that have brought so
much misery in their wakes. (Photo: Bernie Sanders/Facebook)
. How easy it is to mock the Republican candidates. They're the gang
in the clown car climbing all over each other to offer a reactionary message
of disarray that has all but destroyed the chances of the Bush family
dynasty continuing. But isn't that a grand achievement for the democratic
process?
. Why continue a political legacy that has failed in so many dramatic
ways to serve the needs of the American public, instead giving us irrational
but high-tech wars dealing death from the skies, heartless banking
deregulation boosting the fortunes of the rich at the expense of the vast
majority, and a vast state apparatus of surveillance enforced by the
imprisonment of any whistleblowers who dare reveal its existence?
. Good riddance to bad rubbish, except that the alternatives of Trump,
Fiorina or Carson only make Jeb Bush look stunningly reasonable in
comparison. The other problem is that Hillary Clinton, the leading
Democratic candidate, is not fundamentally different from the scion of the
Bush dynasty. She is instead a perfect stand-in for Jeb Bush if, as appears
likely, the Republican Party should reject him for the sin, as with House
Speaker John Boehner, of appearing too moderate. For Democrats, appearing
moderate is quite easy, as Clinton proved as a senator and secretary of
state: Just carry water for the military-industrial complex and Wall Street
while pretending to be concerned about the ordinary folks who suffer from
those costly policies.
. Clinton, in rhetoric and action, will never allow a Republican
opponent to appear more hawkish than herself. In the general election, she
will burnish her record of support for every bit of military folly from
George W.'s invasion of Iraq to her own engineering of the campaign to
overthrow all secular dictators in the Middle East who have proved to be an
inconvenience to the Saudi theocracy.
During her tenure in the Obama administration, Clinton, by her own frequent
boastful admission, was the hawk in the Cabinet pressuring the president to
be even more aggressive in his drone assassinations and murderous air wars,
which have destabilized the region and created what the pope recently termed
the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War.
But it is the still troubled economy that will dominate the election, and it
is the failure of the Democratic Party establishment-now represented
singularly by Clinton-to deal with the lingering recession that explains the
startling rise of Bernie Sanders as a viable candidate.
The Vermont senator's success is not a result of charisma or image
manipulation, both of which he quite properly treats as dangerous
distractions from what ails us, but rather his deeply informed critique of
the bipartisan policies of Presidents Clinton and Bush that have brought so
much misery in their wakes.
What makes Sanders appear less formidable to the party bosses is that
although he is now matching Hillary Clinton in the all-important fundraising
category, he has received mainly small contributions. That and the fact that
his positions on health care and banking regulation take on entrenched
moneyed interests rather than cravenly cater to them.
Whereas Sanders supports the efforts by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. John
McCain to restore the Glass-Steagall barrier against merging commercial and
investment banking, Clinton still insists her husband did the right thing in
signing off on the reversal of the sensible banking practice initiated by
Franklin Delano Roosevelt to prevent another Great Depression.
A year after he approved the destruction of the Glass-Steagall Act, Bill
Clinton signed off on an even more egregious enabler of banking greed called
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that certainly enhanced Hillary's
future Senate fundraising prospects. Even then-Rep. Bernie Sanders fell for
that one. Only four members of the House, Ron Paul among them, had the
courage and wisdom to vote against legislation that banned any regulation of
the newfangled default swaps and collateralized debt obligations that came
close to wrecking the world's economy.
Hopefully Sanders has learned from that moment not to trust the Clintons to
guard against the chicanery of bankers. He should challenge Hillary's
claimed concern for the well-being of black and brown people, who right now
are her advantage in polling. As the St. Louis Federal Reserve recently
reported, even college-educated minorities were particularly devastated by
the mortgage scams made legal through Bill Clinton's banking
"modernization."
What voters of every racial or ethnic group should understand is that the
Clinton gift-worth billions to the banking industry-robbed all working
Americans of the opportunity to improve their lot, as shown by the
astounding growth in wealth inequality since the Clinton presidency.
Are we really ready for another Clinton?
Copyright 2015 Truthdig
/author/robert-scheer
/author/robert-scheer /author/robert-scheer
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San
Francisco Chronicle.