Hillary is the best fit for this system...and so say all of us...but we hate the system!

    Robert Reich is correct when he says Hillary Clinton is a great presidential candidate for the system of government now in place in the United States.  A socio-economic system defined by Howard Zinn in A People’s History of the United States as a global corporate vision enforced by a US military machine which will certainly aid other countries if they are aligned correctly to US interests; yet will exploit labor domestically and abroad, disguising it sometimes as humanitarian relief, sometimes as reward for allegiance to the system and the franchise, to further the profitability of US corporate interests.  These corporate interests have, and continue to strongly influence the legislative and executive branches of the US political system (therefore, by definition, the judicial also).  Zinn documents this influence from the gilded age of American history (late 1800’s through the industrial revolution), and traces the roots of this vision back to early western colonial days in the new world (Zinn, 2003).

   In Zinn’s vision of the US system, political party is superfluous and always has been; so by default must gender or race be equally irrelevant now.  Well-funded think tanks such as the Tri-Lateral Commission (Carter; Reagan/Bush), the Council on Foreign Relations (We helped create the Cold War! Yay!), and the Project for a New American Century (Cheney/Bush and the vision of US mid-east dominance through the 21^st century if only we had a Pearl Harbor like event to solidify the support of the US people…) control US foreign and domestic policy as well as who will be a candidate for office.  This is what most people are vaguely aware of as “The Establishment”.  It is not new.  It is not a conspiracy.  It is what Noam Chomskey would say is “business as usual” in US politics and policy.

Therefore Mrs. Clinton is perfect for this system.  Just as William Jefferson Clinton was perfect for this system as a “neoliberal”.  A moderate Democrat who, along with other moderate Democratic of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s moved to the right as republicans in the conservative revolution moved to the right.  That is to say, policies that criminalized and punished the poor flourished under conservative ideology; and deregulation of industry made the exploitation legal domestically, and abroad, while the trend to lower tax rates made less money available in the social safety net which helped people who did not benefit from the uneven playing field of the American economic system:  women, Blacks, 

Latinos, and Native Americans, as well as Asian Americans historically.  Is it a coincidence that many of these minority groups found themselves disproportionately represented in prisons, starting with the war on drugs, continued with mandatory minimum sentences, and furthered by the crime bill under Mr. Jefferson Clinton?  I could go on about how the middle class was exploited into buying into the welfare queen ideology, the freeloader ideology, and the Anglo franchise ideology which you could earn a place in if you worked hard enough; but these are the machinations of the administrators of the system to keep people from seeing who is and who always has benefited from this vision of global and domestic greed and exploitation.  If you keep the people at the bottom divided and at each other’s throats; jealous of what the other has, then they will never look behind the curtain to see the emperors clothes are the same, republican or democrat.

   So, yeah, Hillary is a great candidate for this system.  Obedient to the system.  She has voted in the Senate to further the policies which punish the world if they don’t play ball with American business interests.  She vilifies the poor and uses code to further antagonistic race relations (“superpredators”), and she seems to be very unresponsive to the growing backlash of the people of the Unites States who believe this country gives people of the world the greatest potential for hope in a system that can be truly representative of the will of the many as opposed to the few.  Well, how could she respond to the many, when she is beholden to the few for her career, and her current presidential campaign?  She owes nothing to the many, and she runs her campaign accordingly.  She repeats the party lines, which are similar across party lines (regime change; sabre rattling; war; cutting social services, and more law enforcement), and she does it well.  So, yeah, she is a great candidate for our current system.

I wonder if people just feel that things cannot change.  If people are aware either consciously or subconsciously of the lack of representation they have at the state and national level of elected officials and figure it’s better to go with the flow and get what they can from the system before it implodes?  If somehow people in the US are aware consciously or subconsciously that their distrust of each other on the domestic level has been manufactured and manipulated by degraded education, especially in civics, but it has been so ingrained over a few generations now that we cannot think in a different way about each other?  I wonder if people are aware that the vilification of the poor and people of color is a product of a flood of drugs on the streets (cheap heroin from Afghanistan and we have been there thirteen years…hmmm…no coincidence there.  Heroin is at epidemic levels in all communities across the US…which fills the prisons and disfranchises the poor), and while drug behavior is a problem, the policy of disproportionate justice to the poor and people of color is actually somehow totalitarian in its effect and there needs to be a better solution if we truly cherish the people of this country?