Yesterday's Deal

What’s plausible is that The Democratic Establishment made a deal with Hillary in 2008 that if she conceded the race to Obama she would get a top cabinet position in the Obama administration; and the Democratic establishment would throw their full weight behind her in her presidential bid in 2016.

In light of that probability anything that’s happened in this primary season is understandable.

But the world is a lot different than it was in 2008. And yesterday’s candidate, if she doesn’t respond to the times, doesn’t look as good in today’s light. 

That’s what The Democratic Establishment doesn’t get. 

Or they get it and just don’t care.

Hillary as Secretary of State proved to be a strong proponent of regime change. 

·       Regime change has benefitted arms dealers and arms manufactures mostly, let’s face it.  

Hillary proved to be a strong partner of Wall Street and global corporate interests.

·       Wall Street profits after the public bailout and our bank accounts earn less than 1% interest.

Hillary proved to be good friends with the oil industry and fracking. 

·       Fracking leaves toxic chemicals in our water supplies and benefits big oil while gas prices don’t come down at all for long.

Hillary’s foundation has been linked to collusion in arms dealing to the Saudi’s and awarding lucrative defense contracts to top donors. 

·       International Business Times and other sources document this allegation.

And all of that is actually business as usual in the big business of big boy and big girl politics in America in the new millennium.  Obama will be rich too and have a foundation, no doubt.  Chomsky says there is no real “conspiracy” in US politics; there is only business a usual…and in that paradigm many things are permissible and ethical In US politics.  It’s just a matter of whose interests you represent, and/or which side of that coin you land on.

But yesteryear’s candidate and yesterday’s deal are  not responsive to today’s enlightenment. 

Trump’s success in the primaries reflects a backlash of mainstream America against establishment politics on the GOP side.  Sanders’ success reflects a backlash on the Democrat side.  If not for The Democratic Establishment superdelegates and 2008’s probable deal with Clinton, Sanders would likely be the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee at this point.

And the story of the superdelegate tends to be told like this:   the one about preventing grassroots candidates from gaining a mainstream party endorsement.  If the GOP had superdelegates Trump would be in the same boat as Sanders.

Sanders is not “grassroots”. 

But Sanders joined the mainstream party after serving many years as a legitimately elected Independent in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate.  After many years of consistent messages against Wall Street, against the Middle East wars, and against trickle down economics.

He attempted to honor the establishment system by playing by its rules.  Sort of like Obama when he attempted to work with the republicans in Congress:  the obstruction they both met has been outstanding, coordinated, and unified. 

If a deal was made with Clinton in 2008 one can only conclude that if you are not part of the “deal”, like Sanders, you go against the full power of the unified Democratic establishment.  What Trump has over Bernie is the charisma and money to defy the GOP establishment; he is unfortunately one of the worst choices ever for the high office.  Trump understood exactly what he was going against, and how to beat them. 

And none of those pesky superdelegates, which may be a reason Trump chose the GOP.

Bernie doesn’t have the media savvy of Trump; nor does he have the financial resources.  Yet he’s done well.  He’s motivated young people not unlike Obama in 2008 with sincerity and hope; he’s motivated Independents and progressives with an agenda that plainly supports promoting the needs of the many in this system.  And more importantly, he struck the same chord that Trump strikes:  people who are tired of establishment rhetoric and establishment lip service and non-responsiveness to the real issues they face hear it when candidates talk their language:  dwindling ability to make a living in this economy is a language a majority of Americans, especially middle class now, understand; high healthcare premiums and deductibles is a language working people, especially working family people and working poor understand; high student loan debt is a language many professionals understand; confusing wars in which we are mandated to support our troops, yet we don’t see any progress, only ever evolving “enemies” is a language family members of military personnel and veterans understand.  And domestic violence escalating weekly. 

On a fundamental, i.e. “radical” level, both Sanders and Trump are resonating with people who relate to these issues. 

“Radical” means “fundamental.”

“Socialism” means people sharing more of the benefits of society; and the burdens of society being shared equally by all as well.

Democrats have shown us in 2016 a willingness to honor yesterday’s deal with yesterday’s unchanging candidate.  In reality, and what is feeding the flames of discontent is that what was true in 2008 cannot be true today:   unless a candidate changed with the times and understands what is needed in 2016; unless a candidate used his or her critical thinking skills to help people believe they have representation in this system, then yesterday’s deal cannot address today’s concerns.  Yesterday’s candidate does not reflect the needs of today’s people, some of whom were ten years old when the probable deal was made. 

Obama’s most recent direct discrediting of Sanders’ platform demands by way of publicly endorsing congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an example of the establishment putting its full weight behind Clinton.

The Congressional Black Caucus, all Democrat, followed suite almost immediately.  That only one or two people out of the 535 Senators and representatives in congress support Sanders is no secret.  But when the President throws his weight around, that is the full weight of the party.  Charming; ugly; and implacable.  Is it not plausible that this deal was made by the President back in 2008?  Politics is a game of hard fought compromises, no?

In a tight race (46% of Dems for Sanders at this point; and that doesn’t count all Independents who were excluded from many primaries so the numbers are far from accurate) Clinton has nothing like a mandate.  Then again, neither did Bush in 2004, but that didn’t stop him from calling it a mandate.  Nevertheless the only explanation I can find for the establishment Democrats unified support for Clinton starting with the superdelegate alignment before the primary season even began is that a deal was made in 2008 promising Clinton the full support of the Democratic party in 2016 along with a high profile cabinet position which increased her credibility for her run.

If that’s true, then Hillary needs not be responsive to the people whose votes she wants at all, because the game is already rigged.  Especially if a buffoon is running against her.  That makes it  a great time to get a lot of campaign support from big money donors.  What do you have to lose?  Obama did it?  Great time to donate to the Clinton foundation too.

And all of this could still be OK if Clinton just had a message which resonated with the people.  Even now people would respond to that.  Obama captured that spirit in 2008; but he was not able to follow through with his promise of change fully.  But he captured our imaginations then.  Hillary seems like she would capture the same spirit of change as she, a highly educated lawyer and politician, sees what Americans are rebelling against:  against establishment politics and deals that benefit the few while squeezing the many out of jobs and resources.  Yet she, educated in critical thinking as anyone who attends and completes higher education steadfastly refuses to disclose about remarks she made to Wall Street supporters; cultivates the very establishment money that destroys the environment though fracking and destroyed the US economy by exporting jobs overseas.  And advocates extending a disastrous foreign policy which makes our troops look very dishonorable in the eyes of the world, as well as has us spending Trillions on seemingly never ending wars that tag anyone who is not on board with the US foreign policy a “terrorist; and labels any country not on board with US business policy as in need of regime change.

This is the establishment.  In the end, Obama extended these policies too.  Any establishment politician will.  GOP or Democrat.  Thus, Americans, seeing this and realizing it, cause outsider to do well in 2016.

But again:  Bernie is not an outsider.  He knows the system from being mayor of a large municipality and from serving in Congress as a Representative and Senator for many years.  He understands the influences in Congress.  He is respectful to his colleagues on both sides of the floor usually.  And he is willing to reasonably deal with anyone or at least hear them out.  Sounds like a great representative of the higher ideals of most Americans, right? 

But his point of view does not reflect the ideals of the establishment, nor the ideals of a likely deal made eight years ago to elect the first woman president, no matter what she stood for.

Here’s what I know:  sometimes in nature, the most unlikely of living things thrive.  And the movement Bernie is spearheading is a living thing.