While it might sound strange, a coronation of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary will mark the end of the party as we know it. There’s been a lot written about the “Sanders surge,” with much of it revolving around Hillary Clinton’s extreme personal weakness as a candidate. While this is indisputable, it’s also a convenient way for the status quo to exempt itself from fault and discount genuine grassroots anger. I’m of the view that Sanders’ support is more about people liking him than them disliking Hillary, particularly when it comes to registered Democrats. He’s not merely seen as the “least bad choice.” People really do like him.
The Sanders appeal is twofold. He is seen as unusually honest and consistent for someone who’s held elected office for much of his life, plus he advocates a refreshingly anti-establishment view on core issues that matter to an increasing number of Americans. These include militarism, Wall Street bailouts, a two-tiered justice system, the prohibitive cost of college education, healthcare insecurity and a “rigged economy.” While Hillary is being forced to pay lip service to these issues, everybody knows she doesn’t mean a word of it. She means it less than Obama meant it in 2008, and Obama really didn’t mean it.
– From the post: It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have done America a great deal of good. By running from the political fringes, they have shattered status quo taboos and exposed the two party political system for the monumental sham it is.
Whether you like either one of them is irrelevant. The truth about how undemocratic our elections actually are, and the disturbing overlap when it comes to establishment Republicans and Democrats needed exposing, and that’s exactly what’s happened this election season. Personally, I wanted to see Trump vs. Sanders in the general election. I think the public deserved two non-mainstream choices for President for once in their lives, and such a match up would have provided two distinct non status quo visions for the future. That said, Trump vs. Clinton is the second best option.
The process of awakening that’s been happening across the electorate this campaign season is in large part due to the presence of Trump and Sanders, and this awakening is far more important than who wins in November. As Edward Snowden was quoted saying in yesterday’s piece, A Whistleblower Manifesto:
Fundamentally, in an open society, change has to flow from the bottom to the top.
He’s right. If you want fundamental, long-term change consistent with Constitutional principles, it needs to come from an informed citizenry. America has not had a remotely informed citizenry in over a generation. The divide and conquer tactics of both establishment parties have proven tremendously successful in pulling the wool over everybody’s eyes and convincing them that there’s actually a real difference, when in reality both parties maintain the exact same position on a vast majority of the nation’s key issues. These include:
1) Support for interventionist wars of imperialism abroad.
2) An embrace of cronyism and corruption throughout the public and private sector.
3) A total pandering to Wall Street and support for taxpayer bailouts without accountability.
4) Support for the inhumane failure that is the war on the drugs.
5) Support for fake free trade deals that are actually corporate giveaways to insiders and donors.
6) Support for the unconstitutional and unaccountable mass surveillance of the American public.
I could go on, but you get the point. The interesting thing about the 2016 election is that millions of Americans are finally coming around to rejecting the policies listed above. The status quo, of course, has not; and therein lies the status quo’s problem.
Between Sanders and Trump, the status quo policy planks listed above have all come under attack. This cannot be allowed, which is precisely why the establishment has relentlessly fought both men in their attempts to win the nomination of their respective parties.
The status quo doesn’t actually care if a Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton wins the U.S. Presidency. The status quo wins either way. Not only because those individuals unquestionably will support the status quo agenda, but more importantly, they will largely refrain from bringing up any real issues during their campaigns. Rather than being fought along the lines of trade deals, Wall Street corruption and disastrous foreign policy, a Bush vs. Clinton matchup would largely be centered around a debate about guns, abortion, transgender bathrooms and disingenuous talking points about the free market vs. big government. This distraction provides fertile ground for continued status quo theft.
The problem with Trump is Trump brings up some real issues he’s not supposed to talk about, just like Sanders has done in the Democratic primary. This is extremely dangerous to the status quo because it teaches the American peasants to question issues and think about stuff they aren’t supposed to think about or have an opinion on. There’s nothing more dangerous than a public filled with critical thinkers. As George Carlin brilliantly explained so many years ago:
The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they’re an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They’ve got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.
But I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.
You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they’re coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club.
This country is finished.
That’s all you really need to know. Politicians are irrelevant. They are there to spin issues and make sure the public remains as ignorant, distracted and as divided along inconsequential themes as possible. The thing the status quo really fears is a population that begins to think outside the box, which is why both Trump and Sanders have been seen as existential threats to their corrupt and putrid sandbox of power.
So with all of that out of the way, it makes perfect sense that some establishment Republicans have announced they will support Hillary Clinton. Go back and read my status quo policy planks outlined earlier. Any Republican in favor of them will naturally support Hillary Clinton, because Hillary Clinton will protect and coddle their racket. This is guaranteed. Trump may also end up coddling the establishment, but the status quo can’t be 100% sure. He’s a wildcard and he’s uncaged. They can’t have someone like that causing them headaches and potentially getting the plebs all wound up.
Now let’s turn to Politico, to see a little of what I’m talking about. From the article, Republicans Consider Clinton over Trump:
While many conservative stalwarts are conflicted and stuck in a state of paralysis, some are considering the ultimate betrayal.
Hours before Indiana polls closed Tuesday evening when it was becoming clear that Trump was headed for a decisive win, some prominent Republicans were moving away from him. Mark Salter, John McCain’s former campaign speechwriter, signaled his support for Clinton via Twitter. Conservative pundit Ben Howe did the same.
Schmidt predicted that “a substantial amount of Republican officials who have worked in Republican administrations, especially on issues of defense and national security, will endorse Hillary Clinton in the campaign.”
But the most absolutist opposition to Trump is largely held by the GOP’s donor class and Washington-based establishment—the very people Trump and his supporters have delighted in offending from the start.
These four paragraphs tell you everything you need to know. It’s one thing to dislike Trump and decide you are unable to support him. Given some of his rhetoric in the primary, I can certainly understand and respect this position. However, supporting Hillary Clinton, one of the most shady, dishonest, warmongering, corrupt animals the world has ever seen, is a whole other ballgame. It tells you who these so-called “conservatives” really are: status quo sycophants.
But it’s not just Republicans coming out in favor of Clinton. There’s increasing evidence that Clinton will target establishment Republicans for votes. The AP reports:
ATHENS, Ohio (AP) — With Donald Trump all but clinching the Republican nomination for president, Hillary Clinton is beginning to explore ways to woo Republicans turned off by the brash billionaire.
“I’m with her,” tweeted Mark Salter, a top campaign aide to 2008 Republican nominee John McCain, on Tuesday.
Democrats caution their effort to win over Clinton Republicans — or Hilla-cans, perhaps — is in its earliest stages, but could grow to include ads and other outreach targeted in particular at suburban women in battleground states. Already, aides say, a number of Republicans have privately told Clinton and her team they plan to break party ranks and support her as soon as Trump formally captures his party’s nomination.
“We have an informed understanding that we could have the potential to expect support from not just Democrats and independents, but Republicans, too,” said Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. “There’s a time and place for that support to make itself known.”
Clinton has begun casting her candidacy in recent days as a cry to unify a divided country. After a series of victories last week, which all but ensured she will capture her party’s nomination, Clinton called on Democrats, independents and what she called “thoughtful Republicans” to back her bid.
Guy Cecil, chief strategist of Priorities USA Action, the super PAC backing her campaign, echoed that language Tuesday night, calling on “Democrats, independents and reasonable Republicans” to reject Trump’s “outdated ideas.”
Irrespective of what you think of Trump, his continued survival in the Presidential circus is undoubtably good. Not because he’s some sort of savior who will “Make America Great Again,” but because he’s bringing up issues he’s not supposed to bring up. Because he’s getting people who have given up on the political process engaged again. Because he’s convincing tens of millions of Americans that it really is possible to give the status quo the boot.
At the end of the day, it’s not the actions of any particular individual that instills true fear in the U.S. establishment and deep state government. What really scares them is a population capable of critical thought beyond false left-right paradigm talking points, and both Sanders and Trump should be applauded for their roles in this regard.
For related articles, see:
Trump Leads Clinton 41% to 39% in Latest Rasmussen Survey
Could Trump Beat Clinton in New York? Yes.
Democratic Presidential Candidate Jim Webb Says He Won’t Vote for Clinton, Might Vote Trump
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump
Clinton Campaign Deploys $1 Million in Super PAC Money to Troll Social Media Critics
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
an excellent post worthy of challenging wapo/nyt/wsj crap. well done mike.
one point you DIDN’T MAKE about a corrolary to hillary going after republicants is DONALD going after the bernie bros.
i think donald will and should seek the endorsement of leading bernie bros who won’t vote for shillary, let alone maybe getting bernie sanders’ to himself endorse donald . how?
by stoppping at the 6 points you told us above not to stop at. i say, stop there. 6 is enough. occupy wall street got it wrong by going more than 6. 6 is just enough. donald approaches bernie with this list and rephrases it to make him look like he’s still ‘towing the line’.
1) Support for interventionist wars of imperialism abroad.
” america will seek to make a deal and friendship with putin and china”
2) An embrace of cronyism and corruption throughout the public and private sector.
” we will not reward companies with lucrative contracts, and instead negotiate a lower price, for example the government will negotiate lower prices across the board for medicare drugs”
3) A total pandering to Wall Street and support for taxpayer bailouts without accountability.
” americans must be able to save money and earn interest, there will be no negative interest rates, the fed will be reigned in”
4) Support for the inhumane failure that is the war on the drugs.
” we will end mandatory minimum sentences and no longer punish tax payers to the tune of 50g a year for the crimes of drug addicts. we will build NO new federal prisons in the united states”
5) Support for fake free trade deals that are actually corporate giveaways to insiders and donors. ” we will negoitate on free trade with china, ttip is over”
6) Support for the unconstitutional and unaccountable mass surveillance of the American public. ——-this is going to be a tough one because trump has a bad record on these statements and bernie doesn’t care at all about this issue ( which i think reflects particularly poorly on the bernie bros but whatever )
i think trump needs to give a nod to the libertarians on this one, but how does he do it????? i’m not so sure you are going to pull this one out of trump. one of the key’s to his succesful election campaign strategy is the people you NEVER SEE HIM CHALLENGE he never goes after the cia/nsa spy state. the reason? those people know everything and can mess with him. they have ALL his emails and data. he knows this, they know this.
i think, mike you need you may want to address this dillema of electoral democracy & the shadow state & presidential campaigns in a separate article eventually, maybe titled-‘how can a president ever challenge the spy state? gorbachev did it simply by allowing it , along with his regime, to collapse under the weight of itself’. but i’m not so sure that’s a ‘real’ solution. is there one?
That would be if Trump was really a conservative. He is not. He ran as a Republican because he could get her in office that way. He was always and still is a Democrat.
Not hardly.
Great piece .In the general HC vrs Trump who wins in your opinion?
Thank you very much.
Contrary to pundit belief, I think Trump could definitely beat Clinton.
Here are a few articles covering that topic:
Trump Leads Clinton 41% to 39% in Latest Rasmussen Survey
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/05/02/trump-leads-clinton-41-to-39-in-latest-rasmussen-survey/
Could Trump Beat Clinton in New York? Yes.
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/04/26/could-trump-beat-clinton-in-new-york-yes/
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/02/25/why-hillary-clinton-cannot-beat-donald-trump/
Can Trump beat all the deep pocket owners AND Clinton in this election and afterwards? Clinton obviously won’t listen to the people’s needs – rather she will be serving those who can afford the pleasure (http://independenttrader.org/global-structure-of-ownership-result-of-4-year-long-research.html) but can he actually turn the whole system upside down? He still has to make a lot of compromises and deals before he get’s into WH. Let’s hope he won’t sell his soul on the way in
I believe you are correct.
If Trump was authentic, he would step back and take a break.
Excellent piece, Mike.
As one more example of how Trump and Sanders are valuable, I offer this. Professor Steven Cohen has a regular radio interview on John Batchelor’s show. Cohen gives an informed analysis of Russian politics and policy. He noted in a recent interview that Trump had questioned the point of NATO still existing. He, Cohen, spent about a minutes time saying “look, I’m not a Trump supporter” but he pointed out that NO ONE ELSE is even mentioning NATO, even to say that the way it runs now is right. They steadfastly refuse to say anything at all about it. But why shouldn’t it be discussed? What is the point of NATO in 2016? Would anyone really like to go to war if one of the Baltic countries or Turkey did something stupid and Russia slapped them down? And how about the fact that part of the deal by which Russia was willing to back off from eastern europe in the early 90’s was that the U.S. agreed that NATO would not expand to the east. And they it did just that!
One more thing, how come there were ZERO stories of supposedly conservative republicans finding Mitt Romney unacceptable? Where were those stories in 2012? Was Mitt freaking Romney really more conservative than Trump? I live in Massachusetts and Romneycare was hardly the only instance of Mittens showing no interest at all in standing up for freedom.
As a burgeoning student of politics, you have spoken what only my heart can allude to as comprehension. I understand the name of the planted seed and what it is supposed to grow into, and look forward to learning as it takes root and grows to fruition.
I’d like to know if you think there is an oligarchic structure in place and if Trump has intentions of truncating OTOP rule by saving what is left (if anything) of democracy.
Great article well written and thought provoking .
LOL just wrote a LONG response and lost it due to the phone Back button haha. Karma saying STHU.
Only 1 thing Michael … for decades Uh .. like about 50 years I’ve heard ” THEY ARE ALL THE SAME” Or “they’re ALL Alike.” I know and respect from your true life experiences it seems that way. From my true life experiences in the belly of the beast they are NOT ALL the same. Small example I know and like US Representatives Steve Peirce NM.2 and Ben Ray Lujan. NM.3 both good decent honorable men. However if I go to them with an issue there is a YUGE.! difference in how I’ll be receiving in their Congressional offices. I want to learn from you what forms people’s opinions that “they are all alike”.
Always enjoy your articles keep writing.
America is a republic, saying the word democracy completely negates what you had to say…
Of course it doesn’t. Some aspects of the country are not subject to democratic whims, such as the Constitution and that is a very good thing.
Presidential elections are supposed to be more democratic than not.
Frankly, I expected better from you.
I always assumed that libertarians would stay well away from supporting somebody with obvious authoritarian tendencies. I mean, Trump is a guy that (a) encourages people at rallies to rough up protesters, (b) had Hitler’s speeches as bedside reading and (c) when asked whether he was happy to be associated with fascists, had to think a little about it and then evaded saying “No, I don’t want to”. I can provide with links to those, or you can Google it yourself.
But no, there you are, happily hoping that Trump can beat Clinton.
As a blogger that tries to do some independent political thinking, I’d expect you to stay well away from supporting somebody who may choose to pass a law to censor all blogs with a big enough readership, It can be done, the Russians did it. And Trump said quite clearly that he wouldn’t allow the media to publish “nasty stories”.
But no, there you are, happily hoping that Trump can beat Clinton.
I imagine that, like many Americans, you implicitly assume that the country can’t go far worse than it is now. Sorry to break the news to you, but it could get much, much worse. You could have a civil war, or start WWIII, or the country could turn into a full-on dictatorship, or any combination of the above.
You may think that things aren’t OK in America and there isn’t enough freedom, and I won’t argue with that. But let me tell you, there could be a lot less freedom. Let me tell you a couple of anecdotes from my own country, Spain, from the time when we had a fascist leader, Franco.
When my father was a teenager, it was mandatory to start the day at school singing a patriotic song. My father, in his rebellious teens, chose to repeat two of the words of the song a little mockingly, meaning “red yesterday”. He knew it was asking for trouble, but he did it anyway. Not only he got punished for it at school, but as soon as he got home, his father added another punishment on top (the teachers had called him about it). The mere suspicion that the family had the wrong political leanings was something to be avoided at all costs.
When my mother was a teenager, at school they asked the girls to do a drawing on the subject of “relationships between girls and boys”. She knew that this was a trick question, done to catch anyone that didn’t seem to agree with Catholic teachings. She spent a long time thinking how to avoid anything that might be interpreted as inappropriate. Finally, she opted for not drawing a boy at all, and instead just drawing a girl reading a letter. For some reason, the teachers felt this might be inappropriate, and interrogated her for a long time about the drawing. To this date, she has no idea what the teachers believed might have been the content of the letter.
My grandfather wrote a diary during the Spanish Civil War. If you wonder which side he fought, I have told you already. I have told you I was born in Spain. If my grandfather had fought against Franco, I’d either not have been born or I’d have been born elsewhere. Of course he was on Franco’s side. When the war was over, Franco had everyone suspected of being on the other side shot. My grandfather tells about this in his diary, and he tells about his misgivings because it’s an open secret that people are being executed without any trials, and merely on the say-so of their accusers, and there are many rumors of people accusing their neighbors simply because they have some sort of dispute with them, not to do with the side they picked on the civil war. When he talked about his misgivings to a superior in the army, his superior explained about the plans the other side had to continue fighting. My grandfather then was convinced that it was OK to kill people merely on the say-so of a neighbor, since the stakes were so high. I remember my grandfather, and he was a nice, reasonable and intelligent man, small and skinny, as far from a thug as you could imagine.
I’m telling you this to say that I know, from my own family, how normal, intelligent people may get to support atrocities. It all starts gradually, and before you know it, you find yourself on the side of true evil.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. And the first person that you need to watch out is yourself. It isn’t that unusual to be fooled.
But don’t be. Trump is dangerous. He has said so, very clearly, already. Do you really expect him to be really tough with the establishment and really nice to you? Don’t make the mistake of teenage girls in rough neighborhoods that choose the toughest and meanest looking guy thinking he’ll protect her. Those girls often end up getting regularly beaten by their own boyfriend.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Let me address a few of your claims, which are inaccurate.
1) I don’t refer to myself as a libertarian. While I lean that way more so than I do toward the Democratic or Republican parties, I do not attach political labels to myself. I think independently on all issues and come to my own conclusions without adherence to any rigid political affiliation. So, no I am not a libertarian, and I don’t claim to be.
2) I have not supported Trump and do not support Trump. I also do not support Hillary. I will not be voting in the U.S. Presidential election this year as a result of not being able to vote for Trump or Clinton.
I’ve written many, many articles critical of Trump. Let me list a few.
Donald Trump the Demagogue
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/07/17/donald-trump-the-demagogue/
Trump Sides with the FBI Against Apple; On Torture Proclaims “Water Boarding Is Fine but Not Tough Enough”
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/02/18/trump-sides-with-the-fbi-against-apple-on-torture-proclaims-water-boarding-is-fine-but-not-tough-enough/
Meet the Immigrants Building Trump’s International Hotel in Washington D.C.
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/07/07/meet-the-immigrants-building-trumps-international-hotel-in-washington-d-c/
Inside Donald Trump’s Relationship with Alleged Pyramid Scheme Company ACN Inc.
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/09/17/inside-donald-trumps-relationship-with-alleged-pyramid-scheme-company-acn-inc/
Rand Paul Op-ed Blasts Donald Trump – Calls Him a “Fake Conservative” and Wannabe “King”
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/08/10/rand-paul-op-ed-blasts-donald-trump-calls-him-a-fake-conservative-and-wannabe-king/
3) You mention Trump’s horrible record on free speech. I agree. Hillary happens to be just as bad. Once again, I called Trump out on it.
Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton on Freedom of Speech – A Side By Side Comparison
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/12/08/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-on-freedom-of-speech-a-side-by-side-comparison/
I appreciate your valid concerns and you taking the time to comment, but please do not put words in my mouth and make me out to be something I am not.
Goldman Sachs
I was always under the impression that American elections – even more than European ones – were a tightly controlled affair. That means that rather than Trump being an “outsider”, “independent” or a “maverick” he has been groomed for a role in much the same way every candidate has for several decades in order to give that quaint illusion of democracy.
He is just as much Establishment as Killary, the only difference being Trump has actually built an Empire where Killary is simply an opportunist. (Although the one thing they do seem to share is the same psychopathic traits as befitting any prospective president to be in the modern age).
The key point here is that this is Establishment game theory. Trump has long been a part of the Establishment and a quiet supporter of the Zio-Con arm for a long time and frankly wouldn’t be where he is in terms of business or candidacy if he didn’t have the blessing of the Israeli lobby. (Forget the camouflage of not bowing to Zionism – this is surely theatre a la Bernays).
We both know that Sanders – as with any normal human being – doesn’t have a chance in reaching the Whitehouse and never has. The system doesn’t allow normal people to ascend through the ranks which is why the U.S. is in the state it’s in.
So, I think the Trump Vs Clinton pairing was always the preferred scenario. The caricature that is Trump has been allowed to progress precisely because it would a) appeal to a genuine raft of patriotic conservatives deeply distrustful of government thereby channelling a lot of anger and discontent into a cul-de-sac and b) to therefore act as a suitable counterpoint to Killary’s aspirations; making her look more moderate in comparison.
And as you have illustrated so well, this has had the effect of encouraging GOPs to vote for Killary without which a majority would have been difficult without wholesale vote rigging – which may still happen of course. Never underestimate the power of denial which was seen so vividly care of Obama’s “hope and change” who has actually ended being worse than Bush, which is shocking in itself.
Either way, it’s all theatre whether Trump is in on the charade or not. And if Trump DOES get in, rather than Clinton then you can be absolutely sure he will tow the line just as every other presidential candidate has done since Kennedy. If he or his family wants to live. You can sure that this is a case of a choice between two evils, both of which will do as they are told. Which was always the general idea.
This is also why I think it’s a complete waste of time voting and therefore perpetuating a rotten system and why the greatest thing any American can do is ignore it entirely and place their energies in building genuine communities outside of the system entirely. And when the American economy is allowed to implode at least those communities will be able to support each other in a very real time of strife and chaos.
You have to ask yourself as the shadow government who pulls the strings of the latest round of puppets, who would they want presiding over social breakdown? Who could be trusted to do exactly as they are told and to make “tough” – translate: totalitarian – decisions?
In summary, there’s not much to choose between them other than the three Establishment models of Liberal, Conservative and Zionist all of whom blur at the edges. But it seems for the reasons given, Hillary Clinton is the overriding choice across the board of the string-pullers since she has zero independence and is actually far more ruthless than Trump, who is, as stated, just a chess piece to launch Killary’s career as the first female president.
Well, Obama had the first black president as the marketing tag so why can’t Killary take a leaf out of the same propaganda book?
It always seems to work so well…
Great blog btw.