Is HRC proving Nader's point?
Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:14:51 AM PDT
I come not to dis Hillary, but to shift the loci of your rage. A lot of energy has been expended in attempting to define and prove Hillary's betrayal of our Democratic Party. Her use of Rove-like innuendo--e.g., is Obama muslim, Canada says Obama is two-faced on NAFTA, and Obama's literature is like the worst of Rove and the GOP--has left us sputtering in rage. Her imperialistic attempts to manipulate the democratic process--e.g., seating the MI and FL delegates, suing the Texas Democratic Party, changing super delegates to automatic delegates--has left us stunned at her disregard for her own party. Now she has praised the very man, John McCain, who stands between us and our determination to restore the traditional values of liberalism to government.
We have cursed her for her sense of entitlement, marveled at her incompetence, and scorned her for her selfishness. Something is starting to seem amiss in these reactions (and it's not that we've gone too far). It's that a slight shift in perspective can free our energies of outrage from Hillary and focus them back where they belong--on the dishonest, disrespectful, and discredited politics she thoroughly represents.
I've always been sneeringly skeptical of Ralph Nader's claim that there is little difference between the major political parties. I mean, I'm not naively thinking that both parties are not puppets of corporations, but I have thought that there is enough of a difference in degree to make an enormous difference in the lives of millions of people. I rode every Nader voting friend since 2000 until they had all admitted that they had been wrong. I thought GWB's reign had proven beyond any doubt that a Republican Presidency is orders of magnitude worse than any Democratic one.
Hillary Clinton's campaign behavior has now given me serious doubts whether she, and her version of the Democratic Party, enjoys much separation at all from the sleazy overlords currently ruining our country. Years of insults and sneering disregard for progressives and their ideas have given most of us a keen sense of when we are not welcome at the table. In applying Occam's Razor to recent events, the simplest explanation involves considering Hillary to be more thoroughly wedded to the corporate establishment so nightmarishly exemplified by GWB than to the liberal values she parades before her New York constituency and, when it is convenient, before the voting hoi polloi of her professed party.
I'm not going into detail here--it's all been hashed and re-hashed. I'm not trying to sway anyone not already on board with what I am saying. I am simply suggesting to those sympathetic with my view of things that our understanding will be simplified, our emotions will be directed toward more appropriate action, and our arguments will be clearer if we accept that Hillary Clinton identifies with and is loyal to the very forces which we are determined to defeat in this election. Forget about Hillary's personality and decision-making--just put her in the category of those who will always appeal to the bigot and the thug and will never stand up for the liberal. Then return to focusing on the issues.
I speak, of course, of a media committed to keeping power away from the electorate and firmly in the hands of its corporate owners. I speak of political parties which are little more than arms of corporations. I speak of judges more loyal to powerful friends than to the law. I speak of a Congress which has turned its back on the Constitution. Above all, I speak of an executive branch with open contempt for all liberal notions-- equality, tolerance, religious freedom, open government, science--and a determination to eradicate all progressive influence in our own government. Hillary is a member of this special club and she is as much frightened by the grassroots popularity of Obama as an Republican.
The abusive treatment of liberals in our country today would make Rodney Dangerfield feel respected. The recent enthusiasm for Obama, in spite of my misgivings about him, had relieved my feelings of powerlessness and cynicism for the last few weeks. Thanks to Hillary and her campaign, today I have that distressing old feeling of helpless outrage that my view will go unheard because of idiotic, baseless, and bigoted innuendo aided and abetted by the MSM and the politicians who control things.
I believe Obama is in effect a third party candidate. He represents the real Democratic Party that honors our liberal traditions and is committed to open, responsive democratic government with concern for all its citizens. Howard Dean began the process of wresting the party back from the oligarchs, and Obama brings us the promise of completion. This is my new perspective.
If Hillary wins the nomination, I will probably vote for her unenthusiastically on the weakly held hope that she will be marginally better than McCain. But I now agree with those I once thought to be loony--I don't believe there will be much difference between them. I will not identify myself with any political party represented by Hillary Clinton.
Postscript: I admit it, I'm a nervous wreck today. If the recent, all too familiar, politics of smear and bigotry succeed in keeping Hillary alive, it will be devastating. There's not much left in the hope-tank, folks.
Permalink | 36 comments