Andrew Endymion
Aug 25, 2017 · 2 min read

Maybe it’s always been this way, with politicians narrowly serving the interests of the donor class, but something else has changed besides the advent of 24/7 infotainment.

Income inequality has grown since the 1970s, spiked since the 1980s and seems to be increasing. There are obviously many reasons for this, but the growing influence of the donor class—which coincidentally is comprised of the people whose wealth is growing the fastest—simply cannot be coincidence and it seems the easiest to address: Through an individual’s vote.

Since the 2008 election, ample evidence shows more and more people on both sides of the spectrum are simply refusing to get in line behind candidates who are most intimately connected to the wealthiest donors via money/professional relationships.

Kamala Harris is a perfect example—by most appearances, she’s sufficiently liberal/progressive/left-leaning/whatever. But her ties to Mnuchin and failure to aggressively prosecute his bank raises fair questions. Her failure to aggressively investigate/punish the Orange County DA/sheriff’s dept for violating defendants’ rights raises fair questions. Her shady maneuvers surrounding the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station raise fair questions. Her hiring of Clinton staffers and flirtations with Clinton donors raise fair questions. There could be innocent explanations for all of the above, but they still raise justifiable concerns that she will set aside her principles when professionally convenient.

After all, what good is progressive ideology if it will be set aside whenever big money or political favors are on the table?

But instead of treating the concerns as legitimate, we get fat-cat, Clintonite political elites like Howard Dean calling some on the left whiny and Neera Tanden implying the questions are born of racism.

This is a losing strategy. It lost against Donald goddamn Trump!!!

Rejecting this approach certainly isn’t the only solution, but it’s the one over which voters have most direct and immediate control. Ignoring it only opens the door for more losses and further discord.

)

    Andrew Endymion

    Written by

    Leans to the left, but sees reason on both sides if you get beyond the leadership. Hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty are my pet peeves.