The EuroYankee Blog

This post is a very easy one to write, because it is, in effect, a simple question: Will Hillary Clinton represent the interests of the working people of America?

Hillary: here is a woman who has “served” as First Lady of Arkansas, then First Lady of the USA, and then as a Senator, and then as Secretary of State. Her professional life has, for all intents and purposes, been a purely political one. And yet, through her connections, her contacts and her skill in manipulating the system, she has managed to parlay this “political career” into a fortune worth $32,000,000.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has been a “real” political animal. During the same period that Hillary was amassing her fortune through an “establishment” political career, Bernie served as a city Mayor, a Congressman and a Senator, all the while running on his famous “Democratic Socialist” platform. The result? Bernie has a net worth of just $330,000.

So here is the question: how is it that two candidates, who many claim have the same priorities and the same goals, could both dedicate their lives to politics, to “fighting for the working families” – and yet one ends up with $32 million, and the other ends up with just $330K?

I think this is a big part of the reason that people do not like the Clintons. They are a political family., they have been making their living in political “service” to their state and then their country for virtually all of their adult lives and yet they have managed to amass an incredible fortune while supposedly “serving” the public.

No one begrudged the Roosevelts their wealth, nor the Kennedys theirs. Even Mitt Romney was generally considered to have “earned” his fortune. And Donald Trump has become famous almost solely for his success as a businessman. In other words, they “earned” their money in the American way.

But the Clintons? They are simply “America’s Political Family.” They have never done anything else. And yet they travel in the same circles as the Trumps and the Romneys, the Kennedys, etc.. Indeed, it is now widely known that the Clintons went to Trump’s last wedding, and Trump’s daughter Ivanka is best friends with Chelsea Clinton.

And this brings us to the Big Difference. Bernie Sanders is a true believer. He is motivated by a genuine desire to help people, to speak truth to power, and as he says so often in his speeches, he wants to use his political position to “take on the billionaire class.”

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has used her political positions to become PART of that “billionaire class.” And she revels in it. And that is, I think, why people in the US don’t like her. She literally embodies all that is wrong with the calcified, corrupt and money-driven political system that is running America today.

She is, in essence, the poster-girl for Bernie’s “political revolution” and that fact will come out over the course of the campaign.

Feel The Bern!!

NOTE: this post is continued in a very important way HERE.

No one needs to discuss the differences on Foreign Policy that exist between Bernie and the Republican candidates. Those should be treated as a given. What has not been discussed publicly, however, and what bears real examination, is that these same policy differences exist between Bernie and Hillary Clinton.

Hillary often boasts that she had wide and deep support from Republicans when she served as Secretary of State. Given the reactionary and militaristic views of the Republican Party when it comes to Foreign Policy, such a claim should immediately raise red flags for any Democratic voter.

In addition, it is well-known that Hillary voted to support the Bush Administration’s disastrous invasion of Iraq. She has since “admitted” that this was a mistake, and that she had been fooled like so many others. But what if Hillary’s Iraq vote was not a lapse in judgment but rather an expression of her deeper convictions, specifically her support for the neoconservative interventionist policies of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and others? What if Hillary voted “yea” not because of possible WMD, but because deep down she thought that the US had the right – indeed the responsibility – to invade Iraq and install a “friendly” government that would serve America’s strategic aims in that region?

Hillary was a staunch member of the Democratic Leadership Council, an organisation of so-called “New Democrats” of which Bill Clinton was Chairman. The DLC rejected economic populism and believed in “triangulation” – i.e., the co-opting of Conservative social and economic positions in order to win votes among what they perceived to be a conservative-leaning electorate. The DLC was fully behind the disastrous domestic policies that the Clintons pushed (Tough On Crime Bill, DOMA, Destruction of Welfare/dissolution of AFDC). But on Foreign Policy, the DLC was also very conservative, and the DLC signed on with and supported the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) – the cabal of neoconservatives that were behind the Iraq War. And indeed, support for Bush’s invasion of Iraq was the official policy position of the DLC!

In this way, we can say that Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War was not a “blip” or a “mistake” – she was not fooled or bamboozled into voting for war. She was simply voting in the manner in which the DLC and the PNAC wanted her to.

Robert Kagan, a well-know neocon and one of the architects and proponents of the Iraq war, was one of the principal adherents to the PNAC. This organisation called for the USA, as the sole superpower, to pursue an aggressive program of military intervention and to project “hard power” everywhere to secure America’s preeminent place in the world.

Kagan is a real fan of Hillary, and speaks glowingly about her willingness to pursue interventionist policies. In a 2014 interview with the New York Times, Kagan said of Clinton: “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue …it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Indeed, whenever there has been a choice between diplomacy and war, Hillary has pushed for a military solution. She was the one that urged the US attacks on Libya; she was for being more militarily involved in Syria, arming the so-called “moderate” rebels and even putting in American “advisers.” More recently, she has called for a “No Fly Zone” over Syria – and we know from our experience in Iraq that such as step usually ends up being a prolonged lead up to war.

There were also other telltale votes in the Senate. When a bill came up to limit the use of cluster bombs in heavily populated civilian areas, she crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans against it.

She also joined Republicans in voting against transferring Guantanamo detainees to the US so that the prison could be closed (Bernie voted for it).

Likewise she voted to “Set policy to “combat, contain, and roll back” violent Iranian activities in Iraq – a major increase in military operations in Iraq (Bernie opposed it).

Hillary voted for the incredibly bloated $500 billion Defense Spending Bill in 2008, which Bernie opposed so eloquently and vehemently (see video)

Let’s make no mistake -Hillary has as much as told us that she would be to the right of Obama on Foreign Policy. She has opposed him numerous times, not just on Syria but also as regards Israel. Hillary has condemned Jimmy Carter’s assessment that the occupied territories represent a new “apartheid”. She has also worked to block Palestine’s recognition as a state in the UN.

And of course she supports the NSA’s spying and thinks Edward Snowden is a traitor that needs to “face the music.”

I don’t know if Clinton’s bellicosity arises from a fear of being perceived as “weak” or “womanish” on foreign policy, or whether she is just another Israel-loving neocon who believes that the US should intervene wherever it wants to. But one thing is sure, and that is she is always the first to push for a military option, and in this way she is a true student of the neoconservatism. If she is president, it is most likely, as Kagan says, that she will pursue what the PNAC called a “Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”

President Obama recently announced that he will not be bringing the troops home from Afghanistan. The next President will thus need to decide whether or not to leave a permanent military presence in that country or indeed to “double-down” on our commitment with even more troops. There is no doubt also that Iraq will continue to be a cauldron of violence and instability. How will a President Clinton handle these situations? Unfortunately, if past is any prologue, we know that Hillary will listen to the other war hawks and choose the military solution.

When it comes to foreign policy, Bernie can always be expected to give the line that he delivered in the Democratic debate: “I happen to believe from the bottom of my heart that war should be the last resort.”

Many may be tempted to dismiss this statement as simple oratory or expressing a sentiment rather than arguing a position. But in reality, when Bernie is up there compared with Hillary Clinton, we must realize that it is not a platitude but rather a serious declaration of a major difference in their approach to Foreign Policy. That simple belief that “war is a last resort” may seem axiomatic to Bernie and to us, but it is by no means a given with Hillary Clinton.

Tired of conservative and Clintonista trolls posting smack about our guy? Wish you had some statistics and facts to combat their BS?

Want to set the record straight about Hillary and the First Debate in Las Vegas?

Here is my own “Rapid Response Library” to use as a reference – some facts, figures and opinions – use whatever you think makes sense to you. Cut and paste, modify as needed to shoot down the nattering nabobs of negativism and the Clintonista shock troops wherever they may rear their ugly heads…

Just click the link below to download the PDF.

Bernie Rapid Response Library 2.0

There is another aspect of the Bernie Sanders campaign of which the establishment political set and the mainstream media seem wholly unaware: his direct and persistent appeal to people’s morality.

Bernie’s full-throated attacks on what he calls “the billionaire class” are widely described as a populist message, designed to appeal to working class moderates on an economic level and liberal intellectuals on a philosophical level. The media frame the Sanders message and the Sanders campaign as straddling these two demographic groups, and they constantly express doubt as to whether Bernie can expand his audience beyond these two cohorts.

What neither the establishment media nor the establishment political class have grasped, however, is the extent to which the Sanders Message is an ecumenical call for a return to MORALITY.

As I described in my previous post on this subject, Bernie’s message is firmly based in economics, and he is addressing economic issues that have not been tackled openly and honestly in over 30 years. The novelty of such a thematic is part of why he has such appeal among voters looking for a fresh dialogue and new ideas. What gives Bernie the ability to win over voters of all stripes, however, is his willingness to ”call out” the ultra-wealthy and the corporations for their rampant GREED.

The 1980’s saw a rise in the perceived importance of wealth and financial power, or what Niall Ferguson, the noted Harvard economist, has described as “The Ascent of Money”. The Reagan Revolution brought with it the idea that our purpose was to become rich, to win, to beat out our competitors not only in our professional lives but everywhere; the 1980’s of Ronald Reagan were the time of the first banking crises, the first bailouts, and the birth of America’s fascination and obsession with the wealthy. “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” debuted in 1984; Dallas and Falcon Crest, the fictitious depiction of two powerful family dynasties, dominated prime time TV. Everyone wanted to be rich. And that was OK because, as Gordon Gekko assured us, “greed is good.”

In the 2015 of Bernie Sanders, greed is definitely NOT good. As a matter of fact, greed is EVIL. Avarice has once more regained its place among the 7 Deadly Sins, and it is perfectly OK to condemn – on moral grounds – those who are fabulously wealthy yet aspire to even more wealth.

The quasi-religious nature of the moral opprobrium Bernie heaps upon the wealthy and the corporations is no accident, and in his economic jihad Sanders has one incredibly powerful and yet seemingly improbable ally: Pope Francis. Whenever he gets a chance, Bernie gives a shout out to the Pontiff, telling anyone who will listen that Francis is one of his “heroes”. Bernie cites the Pope whenever he is talking about income inequality, climate change, unbridled capitalism, the need to take care of the poor, and what Francis calls “the cult of money.”

When asked, Bernie consistently asserts his popularity among normally conservative constituents. After 25 years of representing some very conservative parts of Vermont, he is not afraid of having substantive discussions and finding common ground. Indeed, Bernie’s latest foray in this area will be when he will address the students at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. Apparently every Democratic leader was invited, and Bernie was the only one who responded, and did so positively. In explaining his decision to go to Liberty U, Sanders said “I think it is important … to see if we can reach consensus regarding the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in our country, about the collapse of the middle class, about the high level of childhood poverty, about climate change and other issues.” That is pure Bernie.

And so we have the Sanders recipe for success: a “political revolution” that is fuelled not just by economic themes but by moral dicta. And it is resonating. The Reagan 80’s saw the rise of the so-called “Moral Majority” that quickly turned Americans’ attention away from economic issues and focused them on what Pat Buchanan called the “Culture Wars” over abortion, equal rights, gay marriage, and so on. Bernie is, in many ways, appealing to that same cohort of people who are ready and willing to vote their moral conscience, but he is turning them back to the morality of a massively unfair economic system. Whether he can actually cobble together a “majority” with this moral message remains to be seen, but so far he seems to be hitting the right chords.

READ ALSO: Why Bernie Sanders will Win – Part 1: Economics

The establishment political set and the mainstream media seem to be wholly fixated on writing off Bernie Sanders as an “extreme Left” politician from a “small mostly white State” who is a “self-proclaimed socialist.” And because of these attributes (so the meme goes) he has no chance of winning in the general election – this presumably because America is a “Centrist-Right” or even a “Conservative” country.

They are overlooking some very basic facts of history and socio-economics, as well as politics. It is true that over the past 35 years, “liberal” has been become an epithet, while “conservative” has become an emblem that more and more Americans feel comfortable with. But why is that?

It Started with Reagan
Ronald Reagan embodied a strident, “Conservative” persona, rejecting Carter’s namby-pamby “Liberal” identity. The so-called “Reagan Democrats” were drawn to Reagan because he was willing to tell then that they did NOT have to lower their thermostats, drive smaller cars, or switch to the metric system. America was a “shining city on a hill,” whose best days lay ahead. America was perceived as weak in the world, and he, Ronald Reagan, would beef up the military and make America strong again. He played on racial tensions, revving up the “Southern Strategy” that had worked for other Republican candidates since Nixon. And of course Reagan was the first one to propose a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion.

“God, Guns and Gays”
Since 1980, the idea of what makes a “Conservative” has been framed in mostly non-economic terms. Creationism, Christianity, Abortion, Gay Rights, Gun Control, Affirmative Action – these were the key issues that defined an American as a Conservative. It was never so much about tax cuts and small government, as far as the average voter was concerned. Sure, every Conservative would automatically stand for cutting taxes, but that was an auxiliary, second tier issue that did not engender the type of fervour among the electorate.

And so, for 30 years, Republicans won elections by putting Gay Marriage, Abortion Rights and other cultural “wedge” issues on the ballot. And they are still using that playbook. The recent GOP debate ranged from terrorism (military) to illegal immigration (racism) and Planned Parenthood (abortion), but never once touched on economic issues.

Cultural “Liberals” Backed by Billionaires -?
The Democrats, for their part, have also happily played into this game. The Democratic Leadership Council, headed by Bill Clinton, co-opted conservative economic principles and left the Democratic Party only a slim playing field on which to oppose Republicans on cultural issues. “Liberal” billionaire donors like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer give to Democrats to support cultural, social or environmental issues – not economic ones. And why not? These are smart men, after all, they know enough not to go against their own economic interests.

“Enough is Enough”
But for just how long can the American voter be asked to vote against his or her own economic interests in order to promote their positions on cultural issues?

We may have the answer to that question this year, in the form of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Sanders is relentless with his concentration on Economic issues, and his rallying cry of “enough is enough” and “the billionaires can’t have it all”. In his speech announcing his candidacy, he spent fully 45% of his time speaking about Economic issues – more than twice as much as any of the other candidates, and almost three times as much time as Hillary Clinton did. Some Republican candidates did not even mention economics in their announcement speeches at all.

American resentment at the growing wealth inequality, the disappearance of the middle class, the harsh reality that most people are moving backwards economically compared to their parents – these are all issues that have been percolating, seething below the surface of the superficial political debate in America. But they are important issues, and when people say that Bernie is “touching a nerve” they vastly underestimate the power of his message: “you have been screwed economically for years by both parties.”

The Old Dogs Won’t Hunt
Now that Gay Marriage is the law of the land, the issue of “Gays” can no longer be used to galvanise the electorate. Now that the Confederate Flag is being struck all throughout the South the old “Southern Strategy” is a dog that will no longer hunt. And with Pope Francis basically issuing statement after statement supporting what are essentially the same arguments Bernie is making, “God” is no longer a wedge issue either. That leaves “Guns” – and Bernie is regarded as a relative moderate on that subject – certainly his common sense arguments, and his coming from a rural state where guns are an integral part of life, will keep that issue off the table.

As an Independent who refuses to take PAC money or billionaires’ donations, Bernie now occupies a unique position in American political history. And I believe history will show that his was the winning ticket.

READ ALSO: Why Bernie Sanders will Win – Part 2: Morality