Garrett78
Garrett78's JournalMaybe she does support it, but that's not what the article says.
It simply says "she respects the Justice Department decision." Typically, that's a way of saying, "It's their decision to make and not my place to criticize."
There's no telling how Clinton truly feels about the death penalty. Obama was probably for gay marriage long before he was willing to acknowledge as much. If a mass movement leads to abolishing the death penalty, Clinton won't stand in the way. Let's face it, politicians (particularly those who are or might become POTUS) say and do what is politically expedient. Sanders is and always has been more free to speak his mind, because his campaign is a message campaign.
The bottom line is that systemic changes require mass movements. In a very individualistic culture, we tend to overestimate the power and influence of individual actors. Getting rid of the death penalty requires mass organization.
It's not the individual; it's the system.
The US is so individualistic and oriented toward the Cult of Personality that it's easy to overestimate the power and influence of individual actors, while underestimating systemic forces. Obama was against gay marriage (publicly at any rate) until a mass movement allowed him to vocalize a more humane position.
This being a 2-person race and Sanders able to capitalize on anti-establishment sentiment, he's done remarkably well. But he, too, is a cog in a wheel and is far from having a record on foreign policy that supports the notion that he's the candidate of peace. Consider the following:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/04/27/kill-a27.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/
Bringing about broad systemic change requires organization/mass movements, and I think local politics is where it all begins. I can hold my nose and vote for a presidential candidate without it compromising my values and without it meaning I'm investing a great deal of energy in national politics. I'm much more invested in local organizations.
There seem to be 3 realistic outcomes this November. Clinton winning by a wide margin (in both the popular vote and the electoral college vote), Clinton winning by a slim margin and Trump winning. You can contribute to any one of those scenarios simply by voting--it doesn't require an investment of time and energy. Which of those scenarios is most likely to help lay the groundwork for progressive reform? A strong rejection of Trump, a weak rejection of Trump or a Trump victory?
I'll close by linking to 2 writings by Julio Huato that were kind of game-changing for me:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2011/2011-June/007032.html
http://www.swans.com/library/art11/jhuato01.html
I get that there's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party (and its various representatives). I get that there's a valid critique of the US political system as a whole. What I have a problem with (pertaining to Democratic Underground, particularly GDP) is the denial of reality/fantastical thinking, promotion of grand conspiracies (the denial, if you will, of Occam's Razor) and all of the straw man arguments put forth day after day. Since GDP is dominated by Sanders supporters, the vast majority of that stuff comes from Sanders supporters. All of which hurts the cause, so to speak.
Just some food for thought (from someone who isn't a big fan of either Clinton or Sanders, a reader of Howard Zinn and Robert Jensen, etc.).
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
