The Only Article You Need to Read about the 2016 Election

[truebluegreen]

Anyone with a shot of winning the presidency knows they have only two interrelated jobs: CEO of the American-led project of capitalist globalization and Commander-in-Chief of its war machine. At the presidential level, the two parties are aligned on the big issues like free trade, monetary policy, deregulation, welfare, education, and entitlement “reform,” war, surveillance, and policing, borders, and prisons. There is slight to modest contrasts on actual policies (not rhetoric) concerning immigration, healthcare, LGBT and reproductive rights, climate change, and labor issues.

So I am not of the opinion there is no difference between the two main parties—there is a very big one. When a Democrat is president, it spurs left opposition to the whole system. When a Republican sits in the Oval Office, it results in a partisan movement that splits the left and liberals.

<snip>

But if we step back and take a look at just the last few years, it’s non-electoral organizing like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, climate justice, immigrants’ rights, and low-wage worker organizing that is actually making social change and forcing the Democrats to the left.

So go ahead and vote for Sanders and Clinton, but that’s all. Spend the rest of your time, energy, and money on building militant grassroots activism. Because while elections are about moving candidates, social movements move the whole system.



http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/arun-gupta/62184/the-only-article-you-need-to-read-about-the-2016-election

[geek tragedy]

1. If you want to remain ignorant, misinformed, and irrelevant this article does

a smashing job of distorting reality. About Fox news level.

This is one big load of pig crap:

Anyone with a shot of winning the presidency knows they have only two interrelated jobs: CEO of the American-led project of capitalist globalization and Commander-in-Chief of its war machine. At the presidential level, the two parties are aligned on the big issues like free trade, monetary policy, deregulation, welfare, education, and entitlement “reform,” war, surveillance, and policing, borders, and prisons. There is slight to modest contrasts on actual policies (not rhetoric) concerning immigration, healthcare, LGBT and reproductive rights, climate change, and labor issues.

Anyone who thinks Obama and Bush have been exactly the same on 'deregulation' is a fucking idiot. Ditto anyone who thinks the guy who lied us into the Iraq war is just like Obama. Monetary policy isn't a presidential power, it's the Fed. Bush wanted to privatize Social Security but couldn't because of Democratic opposition. If Obama wanted entitlement cuts, he certainly could have gotten them with this Congress--he's the reason there aren't any. Welfare? Check out the Paul Ryan budget (Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012) and tell us how much like Obama the welfare spending is.

'Slight to modest' difference in climate change, labor, LGBT and reproductive rights? Oy. Mitt Romney's policy on immigration was 'self-deportation.' How many people got health coverage, including those with pre-existing conditions, under Bush? Oh, yeah, NONE.

[swilton]

2. I find the article a load of crap for a second reason

paragraph 2.

The left was absolutely united in opposition to Bush II policies - especially the opposition to the Iraq War. The left's strong stance against Bush, one could argue, was a vital reason for the Obama / the 'outsider's 2008 election.

What has happened to the anti-war left under a Democratic President? totally neutralized to emasculated

[truebluegreen]

3. That is a good point,

if Obama's election actually changed anything fundamental. I think it didn't, and I think the solution to our problems does not lie with our established political parties.

[bemildred]

4. Vanilla US politics, that is.

You can't be too cynical.