Response to Sacramento Bee article re Democratic Party divisions

David Siders’ article in today’s Bee :“From the ‘damn war’ to Wall St., the Democratic Party divisions linger” carries in its title the premise for an interesting investigation. Sadly, the article itself stands meeker than the headline, repeating the same old elements of ‘politics as process’ and ‘politics by personality’ — suggesting that on any one day the two Democratic candidates differ only by what they might prefer for lunch.

The article thus sadly misses the central, essential point — that the divide between Sanders and Clinton isn’t about personality or process, it’s about politics, and the divide between the two camps is huge and won’t easily be broached.

For decades now both in the US and UK the parties claiming to represent the working class have been owned by fiscal conservatives whose only claim to be ‘left’ is some semblance of social liberalism. Otherwise they’re pro-Wall St, pro-war, pro-private prisons and pro-poverty, and they sell that line to working families straight-faced whilst lining their own pockets with lobbyist cash. That’s the party that Clinton represents, and the party machine will portray anything that suggests otherwise as foreign, as unachievable, as ‘outside the mainstream’, as ill-thought.

Take the line from the staffer you quoted. It posits the right of the party, the self-titled ‘Third Way’, the Clinton-Blair-Obama axis, as somehow being ‘moderate’, and thus anything that stands in opposition to that axis as being the outlier. But what’s ‘moderate’ about expanding the private prison service, about dropping bombs on Yemeni children, and about criminalizing the poor ? What’s ‘moderate’ about siding with big-business in denying education, healthcare and housing for all ?

The difference in this election then is not about gender, religion, or accidents of birth, it’s that we finally now have a candidate who’s working for change in our favor, and we’ve simply grown tired of the “well at least I’m not as bad as that other guy” lie-reason for following the party line. Besides, not only is that a sickening platitude when people are sick, hungry and homeless, it’s also demonstrably wrong :

Every time you hear the Clinton campaign, establishment or acolytes rail against Trump U, for example, ask yourselves the very same question about Laureate U — about HRC tripling taxpayer monies to Laureate/IYF, and how $20m of those funds ended up in the pockets of WJC and the Clinton Foundation. Are we supposed to find that morally acceptable ? And where is that story in the anti-Trump media ? Are we journalists or just publicists ? And yet still the party sells its story of supposed ‘moderation’ and expects the multitudes to fall inline. Sorry, but no. Not now. Not ever.

The article fails to move us outside the falsity of the two-party motif. It’s not just Trump vs. Clinton, not just Miss World Man vs. The Goldwater Girl. what about the Greens ? What about Robert Reich’s third party ? If you believe we need a woman in the White House, how can you not vote for Jill Stein ? Instead the article continues to peddle the same old binary — you must take what’s on offer, for that’s all that could possibly exist.

Memo to DNC, MSNBC, Wasserman-Schultz et al — for those of us at least a generation north of the young people you claim are the only ones to support Sanders, it’s not about gender, or personality, or process — it’s about policy. We’re tired of Democrats not standing up for the people who elect them. We’re tired of Democrats choosing gold over hope. We’re tired of being the host upon which you and your Wall St parasites grow fat.

We will not, cannot be good little boys and good little girls and after the primaries are done all rally round the flag. There are far too many people in need and in pain for us to vote HRC. Not now, not ever. And if the Democrats do lose the election they have only their self-righteous selves and their blind greed to blame.

That’s the story, Sac Bee. And that’s the story we need someone to write.