Clowns to the left of you, Jokers to the right--here you are, stuck in the Center, with ME.
The problem isn't the Trumpsters. The problem isn't the "Bernie Bros." The problem IS the "sensible center." That's because the sensible center isn't the "voice of reason"-- It's the Voice of Wall Street, and its megaphone is turned up to 11, like a sound-cannon mounted on an $10M armored tank, quashing a riot by drowning out all dissent (and giving everyone a massive headache).
Not even the Trumpsters really want Trump. They want something, anything to shake loose. Nobody on the progressive side wants Trump. Yet some so-called "Bernie Bros" are threatening to vote for him. On the surface, this seems ludicrous--but it shouldn't be so difficult to comprehend when you consider the impetus behind the massive wave of progressive energy and desperate hope generated by the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Hillary Clinton, in response to the huge influx of young voters expressing that urgency, has insinuated that she'll propose free tuition for community colleges, and some form of debt relief for recent graduates--an olive branch she reasons will satisfy/pacify younger voters and serve her 'unity' expedient. That's not hard to comprehend, either--young voters haven't been especially active in recent elections (Obama's was an exception), and in keeping with her transactional mentality, i.e. "give them something they want," she seems to be under the impression that this will 'quiet them down,' and 'bring them into line.'
For some young voters, she may be right--and she, as a creature of the political establishment (that being both major parties, in terms of operational strategies), has an enormous career-professional-political staff tasked with reading tea leaves, polls, percentages, and applying 'triangulation'.
But for a sizable number of voters, including many young voters, she's missing the point entirely.
The point wasn't 'free stuff.' The point was emancipation from the stranglehold of big-money interests on every aspect of American life, first and foremost the government. The point was forcing the government to be responsive to the people, and to act as the last, desperate line of defense against Wall Street's hell-bent hostile takeover of...everything. Schools, prisons, the military, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, the post office, national parks--you name it, if it represents a big pool of money (or valuable resources) Wall Street wants to buy it, monopolize it, and rent it out to the rest of us.
The point was to move the seat of American government away from lower Manhattan, and back to Washington, D.C.
Oddly, the pioneering coterie of this concept was the Tea Party, which started out as a simple tax revolt ("Taxed Enough Already") but which, unfortunately, quickly attracted an ugly mob of anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-gun-control, and virulently anti-Obama (essentially racist) militants--and which, while alienating itself from anything close to mainstream thinking, still managed to thrust a substantial number of hard-core ideologues into Congress (particularly the House).
I have no use for the policy agenda of these indefatigable House zealots, but despite my distaste for their goals, there is something to admire about their quixotic crusade, and it is this: the so-called "reasonable," "adults-in-the-room" core of Congress doesn't represent sensible compromise, as its propaganda suggests--it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall St. Inc, and as such it acts as a stubborn impediment to any and all change which might benefit the majority of Americans.
It serves the few--the VERY few.
The Tea Party caucus, unwilling to budge, is tagged as a group of whiny children who refuse to "play ball," to "be reasonable," with The Hunger Games “Capitol” contingent that paints itself as the wise and patient parental “centrists.” Oppressors always maintain control by calmly asserting that their edicts are "what's best for all concerned," when that couldn't be further from the truth. Our current government's centrist coalition, with its calls for "incrementalism," is no exception.
One need look no further than the crash of 2008 (which, conveniently, took place right at the tail-end of the presidential election that gave America its first black president). It spawned both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements, both of which were ridiculed not just by their spectral opposites, but by the "sensible center" (a.k.a. the “Capitol” elites).
In a move instigated by the G.W. Bush administration but almost immediately laid at Obama's feet by the Fox News propaganda wing, our government rewarded the criminals who nearly brought down the world economy, and punished the victims--millions lost their jobs, their homes, their confidence in the trustworthiness of both the financial system and the government--and 8 years later, the wreckage is still a long way from being cleaned up.
Tepid, watered-down financial regulation (which continues to be diluted by corporate lobbyists in the rule-making process) was pretty much the only remediation offered. It didn't come close to solving anything. It made things a smidge better. Yippee.
The anger is real, and it's NOT going anywhere.
On the right, it has helped to elevate a sociopathic narcissist to being one step away from the presidency.
On the left, it caused the meteoric rise, seemingly out of nowhere, of a scruffy, grumpy, self-described democratic socialist from Vermont.
Enter the HRC “Capitol” coalition, smugly and systematically shutting down all dissent on the left, and licking its chops at the prospect of "taking on" (gawd, I hate that phrase) the Gilded Gargantua from Queens. On the surface it has all the trappings of a UFC title match--but it's tilted to one side--it's not symmetrical.
On the one side is the insurgent (a fraud, a liar, a narcissist, and a dangerous loose cannon) who claims to be representing not the right side of the Capitol coalition, but rather the little guy, the oppressed dry cleaner/small bar owner/plumber/electrician/drywall hanger--you know, the kind of honest trades-people he routinely cheats out of their rightfully earned compensation.
On the other side is Big Brother, plain and simple (sorry for mixing fiction metaphors). Offering "sensible," "incremental" change--in other words, promising to stall as long as possible for the comfortable so that they can work out new and more insidious ways of sucking the lifeblood of the afflicted.
For this to have been a symmetrical conflict, the opponent should have been Sanders. It still wouldn’t really be “balanced”--Trump doesn't really represent the right, or the center, or the top or the bottom--he's just in it for the bragging rights when he crosses the finish line, victorious--when it comes to doing the actual work, he'll leave that to his kids, and to Homer Simpson (Pence), while he concentrates on “Making America Great Again.”
But the Trump phenomenon is symptomatic of the populist anger coming from all sides of the political spectrum and aimed squarely at the “Capitol” coalition--the Overlords, the Cabal. The populists on the left have nowhere to put all that frustration. They don't want Trump, but they have definitely had it up to here with “Capitol”--they want "something to shake loose," just like the Trumpsters do.
So some of them have decided, "WTF, let's burn it down." I can't bring myself to push that button--I hate having to vote for Big Brother, but the alternative is unthinkable.
Not for some, though--and if the Democrats don't want to run a Kamikaze campaign, they had better wake up and smell the coffee, NOW--not later. “Capitol” is eventually going down, one way or the other. I vote we topple it onto the heads of the right.
But I may be outvoted. We'll see—tune in Nov 8.
