Perhaps this is wishful thinking but, there should be a protest against the Democratic nomination as a result of the recent revelations regarding DWS’ e-mail.
Otherwise we may be giving Trump a really weak contender, which doesn’t change the fact that Hillary is the better candidate. But with this revelation, I wonder why she is in fact, the candidate. That curiosity might be exploited by Trump to feed his cynical, apocalyptic narrative about the US government.
Bernie was the ideal progressive candidate, but if Hillary does remain the candidate, which is the likely scenario, she is undoubtedly preferred to her fascist opponent, despite her own bourgeoisie detachment from society.
But the DNC nomination should be boycotted given this leak.
Bernie should still have a chance.
That’s when reality sinks in – so-called “realpolitik”.
What is apparent is that the American political culture continues to delegitimize itself, which is weakening public trust in government and thus reducing civic involvement.
This gap is being filled by wingnuts.
Let’s just hope we can defeat the maniac on the right. We’ll deal with our leftist problems after. Priorities, no?
In the wise but perhaps blunt words of fellow patriotic Americans Nipsey Hussle & YG: FDP!
The U.S. is arguably in a position it hasn’t been in before. This all happened after WWII. While American isolationism officially ended during the Spanish-American War, WWII marked a new era in American foreign policy – interventionism. After the Civil War, the US faced little domestic threats, and foreign threats were all but inexistent prior to the twentieth century. Somehow strangely, as the US became more entangled in foreign affairs, contrary to the warnings of its founders, so too, did America’s national security come more into question. The end of the Cold War, and the demise of the Soviet bloc, produced a new world order marked by US hegemony – a unipolar world. Up until this point, the US was largely focused on containing the USSR – this was largely an external threat. But the emergence of Islamic terrorism transformed an international issue into a national security dilemma for the US. But the US never went directly to war with the USSR, whereas it has embarked on military campaigns against Islamic radicals. On the contrary, the US hoped for the USSR to collapse from within, without direct confrontation. Perhaps this is why it dissolved. But the new security threat of Islamic terrorism has been approached directly, as with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and now Syria. The US’ national security is more than ever threatened today. Do America’s post-WWII policy of interventionism and the emerging threat to its national security, evidenced by the rise of Islamic terror groups, coincide?
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the emergence of BRICS, Russia’s assertiveness in the Ukraine and Georgia, the economic crisis and the US’ increased military campaigns are arguably signs of a change in the “world order” (Schweller et al 2011). Perhaps it is too early to suggest that the US is in decline, considering its immense military might and wealth, but there is reason to believe that, since WWII, it has grown increasingly insecure. The military and economic growth of countries like Japan and China as well as the EU are further signs of relative decline (Huntington 1988). It isn’t absolute because the US remains the world’s super power by a long margin – but the growth rate of its competitors has surpassed its own. Based on its history, could it be argued that the US was militarily and economically most secure when its foreign policy was less characterized by interventionism?
Huntington, S. P. 1988. The US—Decline or Renewal?. Foreign affairs, 67(2): 76-96.
Schweller, Randall L., and Xiaoyu Pu. “After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of US Decline.” International Security 36(1): 41-72.
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.