For starters, I will always be amazed that at least 80% of Americans were not totally in favor of Bernie Sanders being our next President, and that most of us aren't asking one another "where has this guy been all along and why has it taken us so long to be the kind of country this guy thinks we should be?". How has there even been a contest, much less one that is rigged so blatantly for his opponent to win? Bernie Sanders is the only Presidential candidate to be totally on the side of the people. All of his policies are not only achievable but the norm in all other first world countries. He wants the American people to have a better life and he realizes that the days of "incremental change"--a euphemism for appearing to make things better while continuing the status quo, are over. Our problems are too big to be dealt with half-assed.
It's impossible not to be cynical about everything in this primary. The disproportionate gap between delegates and superdelegates, for example, is an ugly giveaway about how corrupt, conservative, and un-democratic the Democrats are. Okay, wait. Free college and free health care--criminal justice reform and actual governance of Wall Street and investment banks? How about non-poisoned water for the people of Flint, Michigan. Remember that? Yes, that is still a problem. But hey, who needs water? That's idealistic, right?
Donald Trump has enjoyed making himself an icon and sounding board for bigotry, sexism, and xenophobia. But criticizing him is beside the point: he has deliberately made himself an easy target and enjoys the attention. Criticizing him is a distraction from issues surrounding the 2016 Democrat Party that are far more disturbing than Trump's candidacy.
For starters, this Democrat primary has shredded what little pretense remained that the Democrats are a liberal, people-focused party. Those were the Democrats of the mid 20th century, and they are no more around than Prince, David Bowie, or Johnny Cash. The opposition to Sanders from within the Democrat party is the kind of rigid, angry, and prideful nonsense one would expect from the opposing party - the Republicans. What sense does it make to support Clinton at the expense of a Sanders' presidency? You want some change or some improvement, but not a lot of change and a lot of improvement? I don't get it. The idea that Sanders' policies are unrealistic and too expensive to pay for is both not true and ignorant. The country really does face serious problems of income inequality and a stagnant system that has gone so long without changing it has become malignant. Other countries really do have free college and free health care. If you don't want those things, quit calling yourself a liberal or a democrat. You're someone whose identity depends so heavily on the puerile notion that you're better and harder working than other people that you would implode if our society became more fair and equitable. And people who think like that to an unyielding extent are elitists on the verge of fascist.
Our culture is full of narratives about why some people succeed and others fail. Work ethic, morals, faith, talent, the reasons go on and on. But no human being is in a position to make such a ridiculous, other-worldly judgment. Obviously if you've made up your mind that 10% of us are worth 90% of the nation's wealth, any rebuttal of this "winners and losers" view of the world will get nowhere. But if you have a system that alleviates financial burden that serves no constructive purpose but instead exists so we can continue to be in awe of the rich and famous, we will never know what value countless talented and capable people have to offer our society. And we will never have an honest appraisal of the faults and shortcomings of people we hold in undeserving esteem.
Allow me to digress. I recently saw an excerpt about Finland's education system, ranked No. 1 in the world. Decades ago, Finland's education system was no better than America's. Both sucked. For some reason, though, Finland had the idea that it made no sense to perpetuate something that sucks. So they changed their education system, and now it is the best in the world. And the changes Finland made to its education system weren't "incremental." They overhauled their education system, which is what you have to do to improve something that sucks. Why not do that, unless you think it is good that something sucks? And that is the giveaway about how bogus and fraudulent our system is and the mentality of people who insist nothing in America could or should be changed. You hold dear to the idea there are winners and losers among us and at the same time endorse a system that sucks and encourages a bigoted, biased, and toxic view of other people.
Finland didn't decide that improving their education system only required serving fruit during lunch or putting a computer within ten feet of everyone's line of sight. According to this excerpt, the Finnish school week lasts 20 hours, and there is no homework. The emphasis of the education system is to teach people to be happy and to learn how to socialize. That's not going to happen in a system that pits young people against one another in a nauseating parade of test scores and teaches people that the height of human ambition is to fuck other people over, whether it is financially or otherwise.
No, we don't live in a society of winners and losers and people who believe in a financial system that provides incentive for people to work hard and do their best. We live in a system where we reject any idea about how society should work that would result in people being happy and learning how to socialize. But then again, such goals are idealistic, right?
Before I go on, I want to address the two most depressing outcomes of the 2016 Democrat primary, not that there aren't more. But here are the two worst developments from both the debates, the media coverage, and the mentality of voters.
#1 Marijuana is STILL a taboo subject.
While we pat ourselves on the back for being ready to elect a female president - her gender seems to be the only qualifying attribute she needs - after having a Black president, the Democrat Party, and the media still cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that marijuana should be legal and that its prohibition is hideously oppressive.
I make this point because in each debate, Sanders has said something to the effect of "it is ridiculous that no one was jailed as a result of the financial practices that led to the 2008 economic crash but people still get police records for smoking marijuana." In the last debate he announced that he would reclassify marijuana at the federal level.
Each time Sanders has brought up the subject of legalizing marijuana federally and the stupidity of its prohibition, Clinton and the media have totally ignored his remarks. "Speaking of marijuana laws, since Senator Sanders has brought up his policies on marijuana, where do you stand, Sec. Clinton?" is never the media's follow up question. Instead, the debate moves on the topic as quickly as possible. How can you think it's backward to be sexist but still think people who use cannabis are second-class citizens, while every other commercial glorifies alcohol? Equality only matters in rigid contexts such as gender or race. Not to stand for equality as a matter of principle rather than perceived personal advantage is the pits of hypocrisy. "I'm for equality because it will give me an advantage over people who are not in my group" is a total bullshit idea.
Why would there be absolutely no exchange between Sanders and Clinton on the issue of marijuana legalization? If Clinton opposes legalization or reclassification on the federal level, why doesn't she say so? If she agrees with Sanders, why remain silent? And don't tell me that commercial for pistachios where penguins exhale smoke and fall over means we've made progress on this issue. We've gone from just say no to just say nothing. And what good are our media doing by not following up on Sanders' comments about reforming marijuana laws and policy? I guess these "winners" in the media world who have become national celebrities are too sophisticated for me to understand. Don't ask any hard-hitting questions. Don't discuss anything that might make one of the candidates or many of the people watching at home uncomfortable. No elbows on the table! Don't use that desert fork to eat your salad!
Controversy at a political debate? Why that's unheard of.
We live in a neo-Puritan Age. There is a freaking rule and implied etiquette for everything. Spontaneity and eccentricity are no longer welcome. Even being a freak has become a formulaic version of conformity.
Clinton's strategy of saying nothing in response to Sanders's comments on marijuana policy obviously serves the purpose of not alienating any potential voter, a clear sign her campaign is for the most part self-serving and indifferent to the serious problems ordinary people face in this country that are not their fault. That alone tells much about the difference between her and Sanders. Sanders is not worried that some people will hear his stance that marijuana should be reclassified federally and that its prohibition needs to end and say "I'm not going to vote for him." Any candidate who just wants votes but has no principles or conviction about how the country should move forward is obviously just in it for herself. The fact the media have never once pressed Clinton on her views on marijuana shows how pathetic and unprofessional these so-called "winners" in our society are.
The people on the news networks who get to rub elbows with some of the most powerful people in the world may be celebrities who have made it to the top of their profession, but that accomplishment is the consequence of their dull-mindedness and self-serving approach to life, not, journalistic ethics, smarts, talent, or any other impressive characteristic. And that is a microcosm of why we have the kinds of problems we do in this nation: obsessed with competition, winning, work ethic and judgment, we extend zero effort to pondering whether or not the people who become President or household media celebrities are impressive individuals or automatons who learned long ago how to get ahead and since then have made it a point not to learn another damn thing. Not surprising for a culture that has a fundamentalist and insane idea of what competition is and couldn't care less our education system ranks somewhere in the thirties. So much for being number one. Why let that get in the way of celebrating our God-given right to be willfully ignorant and abusive people?
We should not be surprised, then, that the candidates for the general election in November, are historically unpopular even among the people who affiliate with their respective parity. Got to love that quality control!
#2 The Iraq War is now apparently a non-issue.
Just as with marijuana policy and the issue of federal reclassification has never been worthy of extended discussion, Clinton's vote for the Iraq war has never been an issue on which she has been pressed. Sanders has brought up her vote for the Iraq war and his vote against it in each of the debates, but again, the shallow, spectacle-driven nature of these events has never allowed for the open-ended format that might have, God forbid, made Sec. Clinton uncomfortable and given her supporters the time to process who and what they are actually supporting, rather than just saying it will be great to have a woman president and we can't have a socialist in the White House.
The fear and anger after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon are totally understandable, but the reason that societies have institutions and leaders is precisely so that primal impulses do not materialize into national decisions--like the "shock and awe" attack on Iraq. We can recognize that we have enemies in the world and face threats to our security without resorting to the most destructive response possible. Even with a decade of hindsight with which to reflect on the decision to start a war with Iraq, the media, and many people who thought Bush and Cheney were terrible leaders now appear to think the one major decision that defined their administration was a good idea--or at least not bad enough to reject anyone who thought it was.
With those points made, I will leave with a couple of suggestions for future primaries, debates, and elections. As many people have pointed out the superdelegate count should be a proportional reflection of voters wishes, not an autocratic act of political power by people who obviously loathe democracy and the needs and wishes of ordinary people.
The format of the debates is circus-like and redundant. Even as a Sanders' supporter, I wonder what the point of continuing to listen to him is. I agree with him and think it is obvious he is the best candidate for President and clearly the only person running who is looking out for the people. It is a joke that he hasn't been the most popular Presidential candidate in decades, let alone that he is going to lose, let alone that the system was never going to let him have a chance.
So if we're going to have so many debates, why do they all need to be essentially the same: the same questions asked, and a format that only allows for brief discussion on a number of issues and never allows for the extended focus necessary to deal with serious and complex matters? Instead, I recommend having debates that are designated to focus only on a single issue. One debate would be on foreign policy, another on economic policy, another on education, and another on criminal justice policy. Such a format would not allow candidates to duck issues that might make them not look so good and would in turn force the viewing audience to at least acknowledge the complexity of these issues if it is too much to ask of people to use their minds to grapple with anything that is not reduced to overly-simplistic perspectives, as though there is nothing complex about the world and human politics. There is nothing complex about recognizing Hillary Clinton is a woman and Bernie Sanders isn't. One wonders if for many voters in the Democrat primary there has never been anything more at stake in this election or the future of the country.
The predictable story line that the media mega-star, American success-stories we see on TV all too much--I'm sick of all of them--is how inspiring the Sanders campaign has been. Young people being energized and involved in the political process, a candidate who has the social courage to voice views that here-to-fore were not articulated or advocated, and a platform that has been about addressing dysfunctional income inequality and the out-of-control greed that keeps feeding it. But in a society very much characterized by winning and losing, a more honest statement would be about the reality that Sanders is going to lose the primary, is not going to be President, and has been despised by the power-players of his own party and ridiculed by the snobs who make money pretending to be experts on politics and debating, but in reality are polished bigots and adolescent-minded attention seekers who do nothing but promote themselves.
How many times has this happened: debate ends. First question--no matter the network or the moderator--"so, what did Bernie Sanders do wrong in tonight's debate?" "He was weak on his gun policy and remains ignorant and unimpressive on foreign policy." Now, if that's not objective journalism, I don't know what is. Who would have thought that Fox news, long maligned as a phony, biased, bigoted propaganda operation masquerading as a network of professional journalism, has become the model to be emulated by the rest of American media?
In my idealistic, unrealistic world, an easy way to get around this problem is to have the debates focused on a single issue, and the moderators, rather than being the people who frame the discussion even though they are not the ones running for office (that's kind of dumb, isn't it?), would only moderate the discussion. In other words, they would speak up only when someone got off topic or was dominating the conversation at the expense of the opponent's ability to clarify a point or dispute something that had been said.
And besides, nothing says "the people are too stupid to make up their own minds about what they just watched" than to have the debates immediately followed up by arrogant know-it-alls telling us what we just saw and what we should think about it. If we're not going to have a good education system, let's not make things worse by pretending that all of us who don't have our own TV show are stupid. What ought to happen is that when the debate is over, the TV should go off, and families, friends, neighbors, and members of the community should break bread, have a beer, and discuss among themselves what happened during the debate and who the better candidate is. And a big part of learning to socialize--which I think most Americans are determined not to do--is to have vigorous arguments and disagreements and still respect and care about someone other than yourself. Who knows? Instead of being "offended" by everything you disagree with, you might learn something from someone who disagrees with you. And if you listened to them long enough, they would probably learn something from you as well.
Another thing: don't have the debates take place in front of audiences, who are divided up like sports fans cheering and jeering the comments of the debaters. These are supposed to be Presidential debates, not middle school, lunch-table put down shows. What is accomplished by hearing people chant "Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!" at the conclusion of a debate, as though he just hit a grand slam and the fans want him to take a curtain call. Politics is pretty serious stuff. It's slightly more important than who gets to be homecoming king and queen.
No, for me, there is nothing inspiring about the Bernie Sanders run for president. The way he has been ridiculed has alienated me from a Democrat Party I have always voted for and tried to believe in even when it has contradicted my sensibilities. Without question our political system is rigged, and even the more enlightened people in our society are apparently rigid and too conservative for me to relate to. They are not the people I thought they were. They have better things to do than deal with complex issues and dysfunctional national policies that won't go away "over a long period of time" because that's the only way change can happen.
The mark of a good leader--political or otherwise--is someone who makes the people around him or her better. Someone who improves the lives of others rather than improving their own lives at others expense. But America--most of it--is still not interested in that kind of person or that kind of mentality. We are still not interested in socializing with one another but instead taking sides, casting judgment, and being indifferent to the suffering and difficulties of other people that are caused by punitive, maniacal forces beyond their control. It won't be long until Bernie Sanders is reduced to a relic of a better world that was only ever meant to be a fantasy, rather than a vision for the future.
What a drag.
No comments:
Post a Comment