DNC or WWE?
I've been watching the DNC the last few days here. My current benefactors and househosts are highly politically active so that's what's been on TV. Although I'd characterize my politics as "independent," since there really ARE only two parties that have a chance at leadership in any U.S. election (a MASSIVE limitation in democracy and freedom that is roundly overlooked in a country that constantly claims to cherish both), and since one - the Republican party - has strayed beyond what a great deal of its members KNOW is outside the ordinary scope of the party in terms of conservatism, fanaticism, and chaos, I'd like to see the Dems win this one. I saw Pete Buttigieg interviewed shortly after the nomination acceptance speech of Kamala Harris last night and he said he KNOWS there are Republicans who are against the direction Trump is taking their party, they are just going along with it because they think it's the path to victory. They are sacrificing their principles and those of the country, risking another possibly disastrous presidency by that orange bozo to WIN the election and be the party in power. Keep that in mind.
I used to be a church-goer. On Sundays I'd meet with those of similar mind and we'd worship, sing, and fellowship one with another. This year's DNC gives me that same sort of feeling. Although there are going to be minor discrepancies and differences in opinion with members of any church, if the most important, core values are the same, there is harmony. If you differ on even some major issues like Jesus was NOT the son of God, God did NOT write the Bible, or Adam HAD a belly button, your church might still accommodate you so long as you have love in your heart and the Golden Rule in your head. At the DNC this year the core values are the same things that the majority in every country always want... and then a few more. Last night Kamala laid them out clearly to the satisfaction of even the Republican rep on the CNN crew so there is harmony for now.
We've all heard this, right?
They haven't been much better in the U.S. The last time I followed the DNC was a couple presidencies ago when the party that is supposed to be the better one flat out screwed a fellow independent Bernie Sanders out of the leadership and with the roll he was on I think he would have become president instead of Trump. But those 4 years were the punishment for political game-playing. Abandoning Bernie, a guy who has harped on the issues I listed as the ones everyone in every country wants, and little else to the point of almost becoming boring or obnoxious, and adopting Hillary mostly because of her plumbing is what resulted in Trump. Aside from Bernie, I believe there are a handful of GOOD people in American politics, something I can't say about Canada or Canadian politics. One of the good guys is Elizabeth Warren and here she is talking about that railroading if you won't take my (or Michael Moore's (Fahrenheit 11/9)) word for it:
Hillary is not without political skills. Her speech at this year's DNC was very good. She also had the advantage of NOT being Donald Trump back when she was running against him. And even with her vagina, something the people of America are pathologically obsessed with (see last post) that wasn't enough to win the presidency. I think Bernie would have spent 4 years concentrating on the core issues of taxes, cost of living, jobs, education, health care, and political reform because that's what he knows the American people are most concerned with, he's right, and that's almost all he ever talks about. To me that's the perfect politician when combined with honesty and integrity he has shown to have. The voters AND the representatives in the Democratic party know this about him. But they decided that those issues were not as important as getting a woman and a true Democrat elected even if it meant fixing the DNC. Are there different people representing the Dems this year? Not too many. A lot of the same people who punked their party in 2016 comprise the central platform of the party today. By the way, the person who first started the buzz about the DNC being fixed, Brazile, as well as Elizabeth Warren, have kinda eased back on their former statements about corruption and "rigging," no doubt for the good of the party... and their jobs.This is politics in America. So why do people, even GOOD people like Liz Warren change their tunes; why did Nancy Pelosi not endorse Joe Biden; why did JD Vance flip-flop and support a guy he compared to Hitler; why does Chuck Schumer seem to enable Trump and the GOP so often; why do Republicans fake support for Trump even though they disagree with his policies? They are less concerned with government than with winning. That's why. And the final destination, the arrival point at which almost all of my queries and challenges turn into, "Ah-HA!" or nowadays it's more often, "Yeah that's what I figured," MONEY rears its ugly head once again. Politicians do all the church-service rallying and emotion-stirring speaking, and hope-building addressing as part of their jobs. It's their work. Whether they believe their own rhetoric or not. And they have HIGH-paying jobs!
I'm not going to get into the incomes of many of the people mentioned in this post but one bank account that seems like it might be consistent with his job is that of Bernie Sanders. After 20 years of politics, public speaking appearances and book deals, I don't think 3 million bucks is an unreasonable amount of money for Sanders to have and I doubt it was gained even in part through shady deals of any kind. I don't think it's coincidence that I have heard a grand total of ONE person during the DNC blatantly state that money needs to be kept out of American politics. Guess who that was...
Look, I don't think dirty politicians would ever reveal their personal fortunes and we know the best example. That's why Bernie's is pretty well known. He's got nothing to hide. This is probably also why so many politicians (in both parties) do not reveal the contents of their bank accounts or personal portfolios. But I'm certainly not naive enough to think there are many (any?) immune to the sweet deals that inevitably arise when in close dealings with banks, corporations, and lobbyists. However, the Coach - Tim Walz has used his own money to help a kids get school lunches and he doesn't have that much money in his account. 300,000 bucks or less. Kamala Harris has more than Bernie or Tim but nothing suspicious. I REALLY want to believe that they will concern themselves with the revolutionary governmental changes they are promising and totally steer clear of personal profit if they are elected to office! But since it has happened again and again and again and again, to the point where, as Bernie suggests, it is now one of the central issues the American voter should be concerned with even though it is not spoken a lot of as an important issue for either party once again this year.... one would be insane to expect a Kamala Harris presidency to be un-buyable, wouldn't one?
I have posted many times about how I loathe the political tactic of characterizing politicians' jobs as "fighting" talking about how they will "fight" for the regular people as though we are weaklings and they are strong. I guess it's because the average (or I should say below average) representatives I see elected to office are almost always weaker than the people they represent and/or govern physically and most particularly in character. Kamala Harris has a slogan, "When we fight, we win." This almost makes me want to see her lose. It's tantamount to excessive celebration or unsportsmanlike conduct, both punishable penalties in sport. Not only this but it counteracts another of her slogans about the people of the US having far more commonality than division. This implies reaching across the aisle, compromising, working with Republican party members and voters to solve common problems. That is, in my opinion, the way to mend political fences in America. Building Trump up as a bully and saying you are going to beat the shit out of him is not. And that's just the first "fight." The election. Kamala needs to get into the Whitehouse before she can move on to "fight" against corporations, banks, lobbyists, and political corruption, the main problems in the country. Does she really want to put them on guard by telling them she's going to "fight" them? If I had my druthers I'd like to hear her talking less about fighting and more about working together and compromising, cooperation, and the common ground that is mentioned less than fighting.
Having said all of this, and despite my healthy, well-polished skepticism, I am pulling for Kamala and Tim to win the upcoming election and am pretty excited to see if this November is when the insanity stops.
While watching the DNC I also had to sit through paid political ads about how Kamala Harris "let in" some immigrants who went on the kill people. Part of her job as vice president was indeed the border, and I have heard that she drafted a tough immigration policy only to have it squashed by Trump and his opposition party so that they could continue criticizing her lack of action. This is the political gamesmanship that goes on all the time and it was just such bipartisan tribalism that turned Obama's "Yes We Can" into "I've Made A Huge Mistake." I'm not saying he ever uttered this but toward the end of his service as president it was in his body language. If the opposition opposes you, that's to be expected but come on, when 39 members of your own party vote down one of your policies that you've worked so hard on to help something the party has "fought" for so regularly and their reason is so that they can WIN their seats back in conservative districts, it wears you the fuck down! (This happened with Obamacare btw) Kamala's "We Fight, We Win" smacks of the same pre-game cheer that pounded Obama into a nub when the reality that he was not just fighting the other team but his own team as well started to become apparent, and it's difficult for me to see Kamala as being stronger than him. How long will it be till her body language changes to "Help A Sister Fight Here?" But there's always hope...
Picture a team in the dressing room before the game chanting positivity and raising their spirits and adrenalin in hopes that self-confidence and belief will be good enough to carry them to victory. This tactic is practiced by good teams that have also prepared with diligent work and practice. Like the case probably was with the team Tim Walz assistant coached from zero wins to the championship. I'm sure it was not just "you can do it" that changed their fortunes. It was hard work. This tactic is also practiced by bad teams that buy into self-belief as a magical solution that enables them to win without all the effort of hard work, conditioning, and practice. I'm thinking of not so much a team but one person here...
There is a third kind of locker-room psyche up routine that I genuinely hope the recent DNC was NOT! It's the locker-room of WWE wrestlers or perhaps more appropriately the Washington Generals. They're just going out there hoping they're able to put on their act and give a good, injury-free performance entertaining the crowd and maybe getting the dumb ones to believe the moves are not rehearsed and the end result has not been pre-determined by both opponents long before the "fight."
Well, what do you reckon?
Comments
Post a Comment