By coincidence, I was ready to publish this diary on the day of the witch hunt. I refrained, even before I read and recc'd "To every Democrat on October 22nd: support Hillary Clinton" (361 recs), a sincere plea from a Sanders supporter to put aside differences on that day. Later I read and recc'd a lovely thank you diary (307 recs) from a different Sanders supporter to acknowledge that we did it: we showed our ability to come together as Democrats and allow the GOP to show themselves for what they sadly but truly are: the enemy. Clinton's triumph was so good to see.
The motivation for this diary comes from something less inspiring: the difficulty we have when we disagree among ourselves, and more specifically, the difficulty we have hearing and considering points raised by others who prefer a different candidate than we do at this point. As corny as it sounds, I want to vote for the best candidate, not "have my team win". I know I am not alone in that desire; as a group we liberals are often mocked for being so cerebral when compared to conservatives, as if being thoughtful is actually a flaw to be reviled. And yet I wonder sometimes if there is in fact a tribal instinct in every human's DNA that calls us to "support our own" on certain occasions. I don't understand that instinct or its boundaries.
In particular, I wonder when exactly does it happen that we "lock in our vote" for a preferred candidate, regardless of what is said about them? At what point in time do we determine that any and all negative information that we hear must be a bunch of dirty lies told by scheming opponents who are simply out to achieve their own nefarious goals? And since they are merely lies told by those who are obviously ethically challenged, the most logical thing to do with such hearsay is to ignore it.
For the record, I prefer Sanders at this point, but I will vote for Clinton in 2016 if she becomes the Democratic nominee. I was dismayed at the response I saw when another Sanders fan wrote:
I have never seen a more cynical example of what happens to many of our elected officials when they have to deal with the pressures of big money lobbyists.
in a diary on a subject that speaks to my heart: the increasing ownership of our government by the 0.001%. As it turns out, in my diaries the most frequent tag is
Oligarchy (I learned that about myself here on DKos). So I recc'd this diary, then watched as a Clinton fan recognized/interpreted these same words merely as an attack on "their guy"; they responded/deflected accordingly, but without really addressing the meat of the issue. I've also seen a diarist who shared concerns about Clinton and TPP be quickly derided as a "concern troll"; the idea is to attack the reputation of the person who is raising the issue, rather than the issue itself.
The point of this diary is not to simplistically say Sanders=Good and Clinton=Bad. Nor is it to castigate Clinton fans while I put Sanders fans up on pedestals, because I have no doubt there are many other diaries that could be cited where the roles are reversed. Often I get very depressed about the realities of human nature and our ability to work together for the common good. My point is to share an observation: those of us in the Sanders and Clinton camps seem to be engaging in two different conversations. We are essentially talking past each other instead of truly listening to what I believe are primarily attempts to educate. It is as if there are elephants in the room but with a twist: one camp is terrified of the creature they "see" (and/or strongly suspect is there), while the other camp doesn't seem to acknowledge that the creature might even exist.
I am reminded of what I see happening between Black Lives Matter (BLM) and the "All Lives Matter" (ALM) crowd. Here the elephant is the evidence that police abuse is real, wide-spread, and primarily aimed at PoC. One side is doing their best to shine a light on this massive creature, while the other appears blissfully ignorant, unconcerned, and/or in denial that it is there. ALM's insistence on changing the frame to one of semantics (BLM vs ALM) seems to be a technique used to silence and/or deflect legitimate points that BLM has raised. Changing/ reframing the topic to something other than the elephant essentially ends discussion about the elephant (I'll say more on this later), at least for a moment. Eventually the side that can see will restart the discussion when another elephant sighting occurs, and then the cycle repeats. New shocking evidence is presented, which is then promptly criticized and/or ignored if it hasn't been delivered in the precisely acceptable frame.
So how does this relate to the struggle between the Sanders and Clinton factions? In this case the elephant is the issue of the increasing power of the 0.001% (and what remains of our so-called "democracy"). Many of us who support Sanders are fearful that Clinton primarily works on behalf of her rich donors instead of the 99%, and that she is only one of many such politicians in Washington who does this. Our "democracy" is seriously broken; it now takes such enormous sums of money to win elections that most politicians have been trained to act in ways that successfully reap sufficient, and continued, contributions from sugar daddy donors. Our system is really one of legalized bribery, and it is generating a nightmarish result: control of our government is being sold to the highest bidder. In fact, a recent Princeton Study found that
majority-rule democracy exists only in theory in the United States -- not so much in practice. The government caters to the affluent few and organized interest groups, the researchers find, while the average citizen's influence on policy is "near zero."
Emphasis mine. h/t to thirty three and a third for
mentioning this study. More below the orange sugar cube ...
Here's the rub: I know that Clinton supporters are also concerned about the increasing power of the oligarchs. However, I think it must be true that they see the issue differently than those of us in the Sanders camp. Clinton carries certain baggage around this issue, baggage that is sufficiently disturbing to drive me/us away from her. Clinton supporters must be aware of this baggage, yet it doesn't seem to dampen their enthusiasm. I don't understand that thinking. I would like to.
In this diary I have tried to describe, respectfully, the elephant that terrifies me. I'd like to understand why it doesn't terrify everyone here. I invite Clinton supporters to return the favor, and describe the elephant that they (must) see in Bernie, in their own diary. Sure, you can characterize my words as anti-Clinton bashing if you are so inclined, but honestly that isn't my point. I am sincerely worried that if Clinton is elected the oligarchs will increase their power, possibly to the point that elections even cease because they have been reduced to democracy theater. I have a child. What will become of her in a world ruled essentially by a new aristocracy? In such a world, she will likely be a serf because the serfs are many and the nobles are few. I am horrified. I cannot believe that this is all actually happening in my lifetime.
My vote currently goes to Bernie because I have no doubts that he is on my side, on the "anti-oligarchy" issue. I also revere him as one of the few politicians working hard to keep this issue alive as a problem that needs to be solved. My first "real" diary involved Sanders asking Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen whether or not America is an oligarchy. Her answer: "I prefer not to give labels." Her response was both politically astute and deeply troubling to me. Nobody wants to shine a light on the fact that increasingly our so-called "democracy" is less beholden to voters and more beholden to a tiny set of rich and powerful overlords. Why would they? Somebody pointed out that it wasn't her job to make such a pronouncement, and I agree: its not her job. But whose job is it, exactly?
When I reflect a bit, I realize that the overlords benefit in an almost Orwellian way when discussion on this topic is stifled. Remember Newspeak in the novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four"? It was a carefully constructed language designed to control the thoughts of the people. The idea was that if you limit a person's ability to talk about something, you also limit that person's ability to even think about that something. If we never discuss the state of democracy in America, most people won't think about it; as a result won't they lose their grasp of what democracy actually is, and what it even looks like? If that happens, can't it be taken away more easily? Is it possible democracy has already been lost? I admire Sanders greatly for having the courage to OPENLY AND FREQUENTLY talk about this issue.
Clinton, on the other hand, seems to talk-the-talk but not walk-the-walk when it comes to her support of the 99%. There, I've said it. I don't trust her on this, and it is the number one issue that stands in my way of voting for her in the primary. Clinton makes me extremely nervous. I don't want to vote for a person who makes pretty speeches about the evils of Wall Street in order to get elected, and then quietly advances those same interests once they have obtained power. My instincts tell me Clinton is attracted to power and money, and very well might act in ways to earn (continue to earn?) favor with the monied class. I was a huge admirer of Bill once upon a time, but now that admiration has been dampened by the knowledge that, at the very end of his administration, he signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed some of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act.
The act is "often cited as a cause" of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis "even by some of its onetime supporters." President Barack Obama has stated that GLBA led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed] Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.
Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, economists who follow the free-market Austrian School, have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis, noting that the act did not at all 'deregulate' in the literal sense of the word, but merely transferred regulatory power to the regional Federal Reserve Banks. They state that ... under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".
Emphasis mine. I should probably add that the stock market crash of 2008 basically ruined my life (think "eat cat food in old age"), and I've been driven to understand why it happened. I wrote words to explain the details, then erased them because many other families were hurt besides mine, but I am in enormous pain. I now understand that the crash came about because Wall Street types and bankers and insurance guys were doing brave, new, and often fraudulent things because it was very, very lucrative. For them. As it turns out, part of the deal was that innocent lives happened to be destroyed. Too bad, so sad. Only they're really not sad at all. Families like mine were merely collateral damage,
and will be again in the future if sufficient reforms aren't enacted to ensure that "it never happens again".
Did GLBA cause the stock market crash? Like most everything else, the answer depends on who you talk to. And stupid, naive old me needs to remember that you always need to filter what you hear because some (many?) people are snake oil salesmen who spin the truth out of their own self interest.
Did GLBA cause the stock market crash? Let me repeat what I quoted above, to help it sink in:
"The act is "often cited as a cause" of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis "even by some of its onetime supporters.""
Apparently a lot of smart people think the answer is yes. I anticipate a lot of also smart people here will argue otherwise. I am not 100% certain. Until I am convinced that the answer is "certainly not", I am sticking with "definitely maybe".
I have to tell you, the idea that reforms implemented back in 1933, intended to safeguard the nation and innocent families from the kind of destruction that occurred in 1929, might have been removed in 1999 because so much time had passed that we essentially forgot why we had implemented those reforms in the first place, well, that idea really kills me. You see if that were true, then my family, who worked very hard and played by the rules and did everything we were supposed to do, might have been spared. We might have been spared if those reforms had not been removed in 1999. We might have been spared if it weren't for the scheming of the Wall Street types and bankers and insurance guys, who are already obesely wealthy and yet still are gluttons for more.
Fun facts: * a cheat sheet to the financial crisis of 2008 *
- In 1929 the stock market crashed, resulting in the Great Depression.
- In 1933, Congress wanted to reform the financial system in order to prevent future crashes because, duh, Great Depression. They passed Glass–Steagall, which limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations within commercial banks and securities firms. Congress got this done because there were certain, um, political pressures created when so much of the country was living in so much poverty. To get a better idea, it might be helpful to think of pitchforks.
- Were the banks happy with the limitations of Glass–Steagall back in 1933? I will leave this question as an exercise for the reader. Hint 1: do people normally like it when limitations are imposed on them?
- Hint 2:
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier
- LOL, I just noticed the words "if not earlier" in the quote above. Those Wikipedians have such a wicked sense of humor!
- We didn't have any "serious" stock market crashes between 1933 and 1999 (of course there continued to be "corrections", but those are "normal" and really aren't "so bad")
- In 1999, Congress repealed Glass–Steagall when they passed GLBA. In other words, the banking industry finally finally finally got what it wanted. Pay attention kids! Patience is a virtue!
-
During debate [about GLBA in 1999] in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.
- Apparently Dingell reads Nostradamus or something. He looks pretty damn smart in hindsight, don't you think?
-
The House passed its version ... two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines [emphasis mine] (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).
- Oh look. Passing GLBA (/repealing Glass–Steagall) was something that Republicans (who are always so good at business) wanted very much, but Democrats thought it was a very bad idea, at least as a group at first. They wouldn't vote for it until certain "stuff" was "fixed", and lo and behold, that stuff was fixed (if you want to know the details, look it up yourself ... while you're at it, it might be interesting to see if any of those Dems were given large campaign contributions from Wall Street types or bankers or insurance guys, just by complete coincidence)
-
On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton [emphasis mine] on November 12, 1999.
- The final vote was non-partisan, yay!, so both sides are "equally to blame" as some folks like to say (mostly folks on the right). Dingell voted "Nay" (I looked it up).
- In 2008, the stock market crashed. It doesn't seem like it now, but this was a "big fucking deal" at the time. Some of us who were actually alive back then remember we were worried that the world economy was going to collapse and we'd all have to go back to the barter system or something.
- Later in 2008, Tarp was signed in order to save the very same banking industry that had finally finally finally gotten what it wanted back in 1999.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.
- Some argue that TARP saved the world economy and we had no choice but to pass it. Others argue that we should have allowed the banks to fail, and instead have everyone raise chickens in the back yard and sell the eggs ... Notice that Wikipedia hasn't been updated yet to show that Obama was actually president back then (jk, but maybe I should take a screen shot to save this, lol).
- Post 2008, Congress wanted to reform the financial system in order to prevent future crashes because, duh, 2008 was REALLY FUCKING SCARY.
- Tarp did a pretty good job at avoiding a second depression, yay!, so the political pressures to "reform the system" are, um, different than they were back in 1933. To get a better idea, ask yourself how many pitchforks you've seen lately. Congress doesn't seem to be as motivated to "fix the problem" as they were back in 1933, which kind of makes sense because most people are again relatively "fat and happy" in 2015, and also because The Walton's has gone off the air. We seem to back to the normal state of SNAFU.
- 2010, Dodd-Frank ... yada yada ... Is it good? Is it enough? Has it been de-fanged? Depends on who you talk to.
- Was the repeal of Glass–Steagall bad? Did it cause the crash of 2008? Do we need to repeal the repeal? Depends on who you talk to.
- Is climate change real? Yes.
- Bill Clinton (remember? the Democratic president that signed GLBA, which originally was supported by all Republican Senators and opposed by all but one Democratic one?) is now a very wealthy and important man, and Hillary has a lot of rich donors on Wall Street. Also, little Chelsea grew up to marry a hedge-fund manager.
Beyond the glamour, being part of the Clinton family has provided Mr. Mezvinsky with another perk: access to wealthy investors with ties to the Clintons.
When Mr. Mezvinsky and his partners began raising money in 2011 for a new hedge fund firm, Eaglevale Partners, a number of investors in the firm were longtime supporters of the Clintons, according to interviews and financial documents reviewed by The New York Times.
Did Bill Clinton (and his wife) personally profit when he signed GLBA? I don't know. But Mama taught me: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I want to trust Hillary, but I'm not sure how to do it. I suspect that "invisible hands" (of Wall Street types and bankers and insurance guys) were used behind closed doors to help them finally finally finally get what they wanted: GLBA. And they did that not for the "good of the country" (lol, such a quaint concept), but because
1) they would make more money that way, and
2) THEY COULD!
Remember, remember, remember: "[M]ajority-rule democracy exists only in theory in the United States ... government caters to the affluent few and organized interest groups."
It's very hard for most of us to grok this, kind of like it's hard to grok that our parents had sex; part of our brain knows it must be true, but another part simply refuses to believe it.
I see Bill and Hillary as players who know how to work the existing system, and have benefited quite nicely from it. Did Bill sell "we the people" out when he signed GLBA? It's hard to know for sure; my answer is "definitely maybe". When something walks like a duck and talks like a duck, quite often it turns out to be a duck. And Obama appears to be up to the very same thing with TPP, bless his heart.
To completely turn a blind eye to these details seems at best naive, and at worst horrific if it turns out that Clinton is indeed a tool of the oligarchs. How much would Clinton sincerely strive to take power away from those who have been so kind and helpful to her in the past? Wouldn't that be "biting the hand that feeds her"? I am deeply afraid that what is left of our very democracy is at stake. Why should I/we take a risk with Clinton when I/we can vote for a sure thing, Sanders, instead?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
- James Madison, who is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for being instrumental in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and as the key champion and author of the Bill of Rights
Sanders recently said, "Congress Doesn't Regulate Wall Street. Wall Street Regulates Congress." Do we agree or disagree? If we agree, is that a problem? If it is a problem, what should we do about it?
What can we do about it? If not us, who? If not now, when?
I know how Bernie feels, he describes the situation as the great political struggle we now face:
Ironically, at the same time as I was holding town meetings in Vermont, a handful of prospective 2016 Republican presidential candidates (Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Scott Walker) trekked to Las Vegas to audition for the support of Sheldon Adelson, the multi-billionaire casino tycoon who spent at least $93 million underwriting conservative candidates in the last election cycle. Those candidates were in Las Vegas for the sole purpose of attempting to win hundreds of millions from him for their presidential campaigns. ...
The great political struggle we now face is whether the United States retains its democratic heritage or whether we move toward an oligarchic form of society where the real political power rests with a handful of billionaires, not ordinary Americans.
Again, I will vote for Clinton in 2016 if she is the Democratic candidate. Like a fox-hole soldier, at that point I will pray to God for the best. If Clinton proves to be trust-worthy, I will breathe a deep sigh of relief. If you prefer Clinton, I know you must trust her. You must. I cannot believe that you would fight for her if you did not trust her. I sincerely would like to better understand your views, and what you feel are the most important priorities we should be thinking about when we vote in the primary.
Finally, I want to end with a quote from One Pissed Off Liberal's diary, The unreality of America and the importance of facing facts:
There has been a determined and deliberate dumbing down of the populace by the billionaire class going back decades and the average person doesn't have a clue.
4:52 PM PT:
I've updated the diary to remove the following phrase, which was bothering many people and was more inflammatory than I intended
Many of us who support Sanders are fearful that Clinton is ultimately working as a double agent on behalf of her rich donors, and that she is only one of many such agents in Washington.
and replaced it with this:
Many of us who support Sanders are fearful that Clinton primarily works on behalf of her rich donors instead of the 99%, and that she is only one of many such politicians in Washington who does this.