“Democratic” party?
The races to determine the traditional U.S. parties’ nominees for president is on. Europeans, not worried about policy details (they probably worry about them more than the traditional U.S. parties and their voters, though), might look at the party names and seek comfort in that one party is called Democratic. That probably doesn’t include Germans, who will remember that German Democratic Republic, and other European countries bordering the Iron Curtain, who remember all those Democratic Republics in the old U.S.S.R. Indeed, the Democratic Party in the U.S. is far from being democratic!
Why do I say this? Consider that Sanders tied Clinton in Iowa (yes, it was a tie) and beat her by a wide margin in New Hampshire, yet Clinton walks away with more delegates than Sanders! Huh? “How did that happen?” you ask. Easy. The Democrats have something very anti-democratic built into their primary process, whether we’re talking about caucuses (like Iowa) or straight votes (like New Hampshire). That something is the notion of super-delegates. Check it out. After New Hampshire, Clinton already has a commanding lead in delegate count, 394 to 44, because she has committed super-delegates in most primary states already. 44% of the Democratic Party’s delegates are NOT determined by popular vote.
First, why did the Democrats go the super-delegate route? There are two reasons, and both reflect the permanence of Tammany Hall-style politics and visions of cigar-smoking party bosses deciding who the candidates will be, mostly based on political patronage. FDR was instrumental in diminishing that influence (maybe another reason why Sanders likes FDR?), but the Dems re-institutionalized it by creating super-delegates. In “reforms” approved in 1988 and adjusted 1996, they turned on its head the system put in place in 1968. While the Republicans also have super-delegates, only the Dems permit participation from former as well as current office-holders. So, the first reason for having super-delegates is to minimize the possibility of having a candidate NOT approved by the Democratic establishment—right up Clinton’s alley.
The second reason is self-perpetuating and more egregious as time rolls by. Current and former Democratic candidates hold their offices because their campaigns are financed by special interest groups—all office holders do. Think Sanders has a lot of campaign money because $5.6 million rolled in after the New Hampshire win? His totals, even counting that large sum, are nothing compared to Clinton’s $100+ million, a good portion due to her SuperPac (Sanders does have an anemic one associated with some nurses’ group).
The contributions to Clinton’s SuperPac and her regular campaign contributions have their origin in one-percenters and special interests—she doesn’t care about those $15 to $50 donations that come into Sanders’ coffers because she doesn’t need to care about them. She represents Wall Street, Big Pharma, the insurance companies, and other special interests—in other words, all the one-percenters and their lackeys—and will stick it to the poor and middle class in a minute if her donors pull her puppet strings that way. And Elizabeth Warren has proven that the Wall Street puppet masters HAVE CHANGED her vote in the past.
Sanders’s attack on one-percenters goes beyond Wall Street, of course, so it’s appropriate that one-percenter Clinton feels the heat. The Daily Kos just reminded me of a poll of one-percenters by the Russell Sage Foundation that compares one-percenter attitudes with those of the public-at-large. There is a long list of issues, but here’s a summary: environmental protection—8% of elites disapproved, 29% of the general public approved; better healthcare coverage for all—19% of elites disapproved, 44% of the general public approved; and supporting and improving Social Security—33% of elites disapproved, and 46% of the general public approved. While it’s difficult to know where one-percenter Hillary really stands on these issues, we know she’ll be influenced by that elitist opinion—these are the people backing her! On the other hand, we know exactly where Sanders stands, and he faithfully echoes my own opinions to such a degree that I think the man has ESP.
Clinton’s lead in the delegate count comes from super-delegates. This proves she’s (1) an establishment candidate, and (2) she’s controlled by special interests. I don’t know why Sanders doesn’t use these facts to his advantage. He should hammer her on this in every debate that’s left. It’s not a personal attack because it’s based on facts. It’s not sexist (imagine Bill Clinton calling Sanders sexist!) because those facts only say that she’s the anti-democratic establishment candidate beholding to special interests—it says nothing about her being a woman. Indeed, Albright and Steinem insulted all young people, but especially young female voters, by bringing gender into this discussion, and they would have none of it—young voters (and that goes all the way to age 45) have Clinton’s number and will never trust her. Besides, if Hillary Clinton were a man, the candidate would still be the establishment candidate and a candidate who’s a one-percenter beholding to elites and special interests.
Minorities should pay attention to this delegate math. For one thing, it disenfranchises them along with everyone else. Most aren’t part of the establishment and, apart from all the hype, Clinton, as an establishment candidate and far right of Sanders, will represent Blacks and Hispanics far less than Sanders. He’s NEVER SAID he’s only for white poor and middle class citizens—his campaign is racially, religiously, sexually, and lifestyle neutral. He’s for the 99% and NOT the 1%. He’s fighting to diminish the income gap; Clinton is fighting to preserve it and increase it to benefit her campaign backers, one-percenters like her. That 99% contains a large percentage of minorities. The Democratic Party has always under-represented them recently by using super-delegates to coddle the Democratic establishment and the special interests who back it. The Democratic Party only uses minorities to win elections and then forgets about them. Bill the “first Black president”? C’mon!
It was amusing that all the old congressional Blacks in that famous caucus came out for Clinton. These are Blacks who are part of the establishment now, the old guard who got theirs and don’t want to upset the apple cart. They live in the past glories of the civil rights movements of the sixties, principally a southern phenomenon, and have conveniently forgotten that the movement was also strong in the North. Sanders was arrested in Chicago in a civil rights protest and was consistently a supporter of civil rights, for example, as many Jews were back in the sixties. But these old establishment Blacks along with the movie Selma want us to forget about the many contributions Jews made to the civil rights, even in the South—people of all races died or were beaten in these protests.
Dr. King always considered the fight for human rights as a more general issue, not just a Black issue. His dream was for a color-blind America, and he welcomed the concerned whites, including Jews, who joined with him in pursuing that dream. He would love that young people today are more color-blind than the older generation of Blacks that populates that congressional caucus. Young people have moved beyond many things that their elders still get hung up on—race, religion, sexual orientation, reproductive rights, and other issues are no longer as much a concern as the environment, voting rights, healthcare, poverty and wealth distribution, militarism, education, police brutality, and others. Clinton’s support among Blacks is from older blacks, and they’re super-delegates, signifying they’re part of the establishment, just like she is.
In the latter half of the 20th century and so far in the 21st, the Dems have only fielded two candidates who almost lived up to the name of the party, George McGovern and Barack Obama. The former lost the election mainly because the establishment didn’t really back him, getting their revenge for the 1968 rule changes that “disenfranchised” the Tammany Hall clones. By doing so, they handed the election to Nixon (Jimmy Carter led the charge against McGovern at the convention). Obama had mixed success, sometimes going against the establishment and special interests, other times caving to them (it didn’t help that Dems in Congress, all establishment, went against him many times). In other words, Obama portrayed himself as the Washington outsider, but soon tried to become the quintessential insider. Now we’re running the risk of fielding yet another Dem candidate supported by the establishment and special interests, much more so than Obama.
Clinton is leading among minorities. Some have become part of the Dem establishment under Obama. At first blush, that’s a positive development, but not if they support Clinton, and many do. Both Bill and Hillary have made a career out of hoodwinking minorities, riding to one-percenter status on the backs of the poor and middle class. Minority voters have to get smart and recognize that Clinton won’t work to further their interests. As a one-percenter, she doesn’t really care about the plight of minorities, or the poor and middle classes. The party establishment doesn’t really care either. The I-have-mine-so-f$%&-you attitude prevails among the establishment, whether Dem or GOP. Minority voters have to recognize that any words directed at them by pols other than Sanders are only hype; Clinton is like the pied piper of Hamlin, but minorities don’t have to follow her to their destruction.
It’s too late to change this anti-democratic super-delegate scam the Democratic Party employs to rig the choice of nominee. But it’s not too late for making your vote count by voting for Sanders. An overwhelming vote for Sanders in every primary state will give him the nomination even without these anti-democratic super-delegates. Once he’s the nominee, the first thing he should do is change the party rules so that any future candidate not beholding to the establishment and special interests, no matter their agenda, has a fairer chance to win the nomination. With those changes, it’s possible the party will finally live up to its name. The Dems’ primaries are rigged against Bernie and in favor of Hillary. She will win easily if you don’t vote for Bernie. Feel the Bern!
And so it goes….
