Why “The Don’s” pilot has already been Canceled:

On Ending the Cult of Exceptionalism in American Politics


To this television producer, the 2016 US presidential election has emerged as a hyperbolic endgame of Ayn Randist paradigmatics, which first morphed from page to political stage as “trickle down economics” in the 80’s, then fueled a conservative movement in our country based on a perverse syntactical misconception that society’s greatest cultural value is extreme exceptionalism. The current Trumpist narrative is built on this misconception’s cultural re-enforcement within the American financial apparatus’ economic development practices in both the domestic and foreign policy it has pre-emptively pursued. Backed by it’s endlessly violent protection of corporate interests, which has narrowed our society’s communication channels into ever tightening capillaries of plutocratic and inside-out fascististic, even fetishistic, control of media outlets; this election season the “cult of exceptionalism” has emerged out of the nursery of the establishment’s fraudulent Neo-Liberalist agenda in all it’s monstrosity to brandish it’s fangs of mutant commercialism to the world.

Ask Dr. West. Ask Dr. Chomsky. Ask your neighbor.

The problem for people still buying into the “Make America Great Again” pitch — and in turn all of us since they project so much of a presence in the media, shattering ratings with their “Amazing Race” to the bottom election season — is that their extremely exceptional (believe me, he’s really really exceptional) candidate doesn’t have the votes of the people.

It’s a myth. A big pffffffat Jungian lie.

Despite the higher primary turnouts overall, the NY Times reported in August that only 9% of the country chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees. This blatant disparity of partisanship will play out in the General Election when Independents, now America’s largest voting block, get their independent chance to vote... together. Of the majority in this block who didn’t nominate either of the current parties’ candidates, there is a large, and active group of independent Sanders supporters who pundits like Nate Silver believe can supply Clinton “a fairly comfortable” victory over Trump if they can work together… independently, but together.


But what would drive the notoriously unpredictable mish-mash of Independent constituents to galvanize into a unified voting base? Linguistics, and narrative my fellow Americans — words and story. Independently together these constituents will mostly conclude that Clinton’s notion of strength via solidarity will make a better victory headline than Trump’s feckless appeal for strength via force.


To this Progressive, who’s been watching all season long, it seems “The Ponze’s” pitch has even lost it’s traction from within his own party. The internal strife there translates into a greater dissonance in campaign messaging for the RNC, and a voting deflation for their ticket, as Independents seek to latch onto the most coherent narrative in the final stretch. And they’re not going to find it from the stunt-driven Stein campaign, which also unfortunately suffers from a great misogynistic backlash, or that forgettable Johnston what’s-his-name.

Meanwhile, if anyone has read the full-length transcripts from her latest WikiLeak of speeches to financial sector leaders, let me know if you also discovered a Presidential Nominee in Clinton who’s predictably Liberal in her rhetoric, yet provides an experienced voice who can bring complex issues into the room, while helping to make her audience feel engaged and considered. Of course she speaks their lingo, and gets paid well to do it. How do you think she got NY state funds for first responders after 9/11? It should therefore be no surprise, based on Hillary’s background, that she’s chummy with the “Too Big To Fail” crowd. SHE WORKS WITH THEM… A LOT!!! However, we need not forget she is one of the 1% when we cast our vote for her. It’s a fair vulnerability the people should accept in her establishment-driven candidacy, given the historical moment.

The counter-balance must be that the public must also remember to see she follows through on her calls for campaign finance reform, trade transparency, tax reform, and increased regulation of Wall St. We must demand she call those meetings with the extra time she’ll have off from her foundation, where she can conceivably work with public guardians like NY AG Eric Schneiderman to advance progressive reform because of her connections and experience.

Albeit she’s not likely to stand up for the #NoDAPL crowd to Goldman Sachs anytime soon, or protect us from the TPP trade grab. It’s heartbreakingly difficult to know if she can find any room in her heart, or her agenda, to help the #BLM movement stop the public massacre of innocent black people too.

However, no one who’s been paying attention would expect HRC’s terms to be as experimental as the presidency of say FDR, which gave our country a New Deal. Besides, in her own words, she feels more akin to Teddy.

During her remarks to Deustsche Bank [10/7/14], she reflected: “Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn’t want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there’s more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that’s increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt’s square deal. And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job.”

With so much on the line in this year’s election, Hillary at least represents a potential Commander-in-Chief who offers our country someone familiar to work with, someone who might conceivably achieve bi-partisan reform of our criminal justice system, someone who might even re-connect with her populist roots while in office, and certainly someone with enough organizational fitness to uphold some public good. If President H. Clinton delivers even one good “square deal” to Americans, we’ll all wake up from this nightmarish campaign season feeling a little better after being forced to binge watch so long.

But at the very very least, Clinton has a narrative that doesn’t bring OPP onto the debate stage.


At least she’s a nominee who’ll answer questions directly, and can willfully stick to script — if not awkwardly. At least Hillary has been pressed to death enough through her service and campaigns to present a platform with a core rhetoric of healing our country, and becoming stronger together.

Whether you’re of the third-party leaning variety or perhaps more of a fence-sitter, I hope these considerations my prepare you to independently shed your undecided status, let down your residual mythic walls (so we don’t have to ever hear about building actual walls ever again), and end the debate now. A month early.

Let him stay in the race. Let him sniff his campaign away.

Let’s stand together to claim an independent-driven victory, take a breath of relief in our choice, and then enjoy watching Strumpf’s career get canceled. Then we’ll help the whole military-industrial regime get some good counseling. Oh heck, we’re all going to need good counseling after this election!

But until Election Day, let’s all #betogether on the left and beyond.

Let’s #getwither.

Let’s be #downwithHRC (in the dopest sense).

After Nov. 8th we can turn our attention, our imaginations, and our true sense of greatness towards holding our leaders accountable in the regeneration of our water supply, our policing, our civil liberties, our agriculture, our media, our institutions, our energy, our consumption, our trade practices, etc., etc., etc.

My prediction is that if we can hold strong together against the empty, abusive, disturbing, unhinged narrative of the right’s for these next 30 days, perhaps we can also find the strength to take a next step as a nation towards making our representatives start working more for us over the next four years.

Call me hopelessly, ridiculously, progressive, I don’t mind; buttttttttt if we can amplify rising congressional voices like Sanders’, Turner’s,Gabbard’s, and Warren’s to tune the establishment voices into what truly makes us great — affirming human rights around the world, listening to the needs of the struggling, advancing our infrastructure, and developing greater trust in the commonwealth — we might all just get what we all wanted since that whole Boston Tea Party thing: equal representation.