The Democrat-Republican, left-right, Atheist-Cleric dichotomy is a farce.
Political elites know human beings are more inclined to “defend” something than to attack it.
So they create a delusion of competition between theories, such as atheism and religion, which appear to be opposite, and lets say, communism and libertarianism, or democracy and republicanism, so as to keep constituencies controlled and voting for the supposed “opposition”.
But in reality, all of these guys, atheists, clerics, libertarians, socialists – they are all more concerned with promoting their “belief system” or the “lack thereof” than pointing out what is right or wrong, from a rationally based moral system.
These guys, Ben Carson, the Young Turks…they will all promote their bigotry with a slight hint of moral discourse but they will ALWAYS fall short of addressing the main global issues facing us from an impartial standpoint because it threatens their social status and employment.
This applies to Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Donald Trump, Glen Beck & Hillary Clintons (neo-cons and/or closet conservatives)
It also applies to the Bernie Sanders, Bill Mahers & Salman Rushdies (populist socialists and/or militant atheists)
You see I put my faith in less ideologically inclined individuals. I prefer to trust individuals of conviction and moderation; those who understand the complexity of human nature. These figures tend to be closer to the “ideological center” of the political spectrum, preferring the wisdom of moderation over the perhaps shortsighted instant-gratification of ideological-populism.
To be frank, of the three contenders, the one who exhibited this type of humility the most was Governor Martin O’Malley, who is least likely of them to win.
He was the only contender to say “Black Lives Matter”.
If this doesn’t speak to Sander’s blind populism or Hillary’s overt power hunger then I don’t know what does!
America is at a real turning point in its political culture.
Many ideologies are on the table.
Where are the minorities?
I like the idea that Democrats are more egalitarian than Republicans, but is Bernie’s socialism really the solution? America’s problem isn’t just economic. It is a cultural ailment; police brutality, mass-incarceration, a terribly hawkish foreign policy dominated by foreign interest-lobbies.
Bernie is super appealing. That’s why I think Larry David fit this character so well. I am not anti-Bernie Sanders, but I am yet to be pro-anybody that isn’t critical on particular issues.
In the realm of domestic politics, we need people who aren’t afraid to point out inconsistencies.
In foreign politics; we need someone who isn’t an Israeli lapdog.
Obama has given Israel the cold shoulder; but he has also given them a blanket to stay warm.
I prefer his strategy over any of the current contenders.
Republicans have nothing to offer but war, as usual.
Imagine an Arab-American president, one that understands the struggles of the minorities inside America, but isn’t all too detached from America’s foreign policy shortcomings. Let’s be frank; America’s domestic politics is completely dependent and a direct reflection of its foreign policies. Why do you think American politicians are less encouraged to bring issues of foreign policy to the attention of the American people? Because Americans would hate to associate their “freedom-loving-democracy” with carnage and evil abroad.
We need leaders who are realists; who are not daunted by America’s history.
We need more minority representation. The democrats were looking like the Whigs from the UK. I wonder what percentage of financially struggling Americans are non-white. How would this make democrats look? Where are our multi-ethnic representatives? We need leaders who understand and connect with struggling Americans not privileged white girls in gentrified Williamsburg. I still prefer democrats because they don’t use hateful rhetoric and are more professional – republicans are nouveau riche, and are literally uneducated in the fields of economics and policy. Hillary Clinton sounds like a corporate pawn and a closet republican. Sanders is a populist-fanatic who tweets jigglypuff policies on the regular – seemingly disconnected from political reality especially abroad. Sanders is naive. Clinton is a tool. We need another Obama. Sure, the man isn’t perfect, but he’s done enough to prove he isn’t in the pockets of corporate America entirely; especially in his handling of foreign policy. We need more candidates to rise from different backgrounds. This is what the Democratic Party is all about. A diverse America of equal opportunity; not this Disneyland fairytale of a veil used by democrats and republicans alike to hide the political realities ailing America; racism, xenophobia, prison and military complex, and institutionalized disenfranchisement – to name just a few.
Should I even other mentioning the other guys (contenders)? What were their names again?
Sorry to be harsh – this is politics.
I know the dude is doing his best to speak on almost all issues of popular will, would be admirable to see him challenge US foreign policy on Middle East, especially Palestinian human rights. I think that would help bridge the gap between minority groups and non-minorities on the left, that is, a shift in American foreign policy.
But still, there remains no mention of Palestinian human rights of self-determination. And we all know this issue is the crux of the ME political dynamic; as well as the primary cause of mistrust between the ME & the West. I still think Bernie’s agenda is incredible, but as an immigrant from the ME, I can’t help but see the interdependence between US domestic policy and our actions in the ME.
I’m not sure Hillary is a proponent of boots on the ground as much as the GOP. Nonetheless, my ideal stance would be to use our “exceptional” diplomatic leverage to pressure Israeli policy against suppression of Palestinian self-determination. Let the world discover how “democratic” Israel really is. But is that in U.S. imperial interests? Which is why is irks me when someone like Sanders defends Israel, a socio-economically exploitative entity; something he swears to defend against.
He addresses it here; goes far enough to assert Palestinian rights and need for Two-States. Does he acknowledge the possibility that Israeli expansionism is never-ending; that perhaps Israeli survival depends on it? Is he merely scapegoating so as to appease both Palestinians and Israelis without actually addressing the issue at hand? Or does Sanders actually believe that a two-state solution is possible? All questions that matter, because, in today’s world, as the West confronts “Islamism”, the roots of it lay at the trunk of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
On a light note, here’s a snippet from Larry Wilmore’s Nightly Show featuring Mac Miller that captures the horrors of American electoral politics and the underlying conservative racism which is largely influential in the US political scene: