Using Moral Panic as a Weapon: The “Supreme Court Card”

All across the social media sphere these past few days, in thousands of often bitter comment arguments, the Supreme Court Card is being played.

We are all being threatened.

Yes, they are threatening to put homophobes and misogynists on the Supreme Court. And gun wavers and constitutional right takers. We know.

And you are asking us to worry more about this than about the other things we worry about.

Do you know you are asking us to put the interests of 30 million ahead of the interests of 300 million?

Everyone is aware the Republican leadership uses moral panic as a weapon. They play their sex-starved base voters like chumps, while they are out banging anything that moves. (For example, their boss in congress for so many years, Molester Hastert.) (Or testifying in court why it ain’t so bad, when they do it.)

But it’s a smokescreen, while they carry out the same economic policies as the Democrats. Policies which have been the same for 36 years, and which have starved to death the America we once had. The decline won’t and can’t stop under those policies.

Both parties are killing the US economy, liquidating it’s value, and pouring that value into the vaults of the families that own the parties. Once that value hits those vaults, it’s gone.

They are threatening your immediate sexual identity and emotional and legal life with one hand, but they are also threatening all the years of your future, your ability to live a decent life without fear of being dumped into a very real and bitter poverty, with their other hand.

It’s a common tactic in war. Your enemy threatens something you love, but their real target is something that weakens you systemically and forces you to surrender or be annihilated. Then you’ve lost what you loved anyway.

We are not unaware of your problem and your self interest. But are you aware of our problem, and our self interest?

I need to ask you now to defend the logic that says your group’s risk if the sex-starved republicans put a homophobic misogynist on the supreme court is worse for the country as a whole, than the whole country’s risk from having president after president given the position by Wall Street and the richest thousand people in the country?

Dancin’ with the ones who brung ya.

Here’s the thing. Your whole argument is sound, from our perspective, only if one thing is true. That Hillary Clinton is not who she says she is, and that underneath all those corporate logos beats a rebellious heart .

And that when she becomes president, she will stop doing what she did before, defy those who paid for her to become president, and fight for an economic future for this country and it’s people.

But, what if she is exactly who she says she is, and what if she does in fact do what the people who paid for her presidency tell her they want?

(The articles below illustrate and support this idea I am writing about, “who she says she is”.)

Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire.

As Clinton tries to talk tough about how she will stand up to America’s biggest banks, her Democratic rivals are likely to remind voters just how cozy she’s been with Wall Street.
Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees.
“Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it’s heart-felt, long-established and well known,” former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has said on the campaign trail.
While Clinton has given paid speeches to many groups, Wall Street banks and investment houses made up a third of her speech income.
She even made more money speaking to UBS and Goldman Sachs than her husband Bill did. Goldman Sachs in New York paid Bill $200,000 for a speech in June 2013 and Hillary $225,000 for a speech in October of that year.

Clinton campaign funding details.

Sanders campaign funding details

The beginning of the list of known outside donors, people giving money to PACs and similar organizations.

“ These are the top individuals and organizations spending their money to influence your vote. That is, these are the top DISCLOSED donors. Some categories of outside spenders, such as 501(c)(4) groups, are not required to disclose the identities of their contributors.”

Known Corporate donations to PACs. (from opensecret)

More Links

Clinton says she will rein in wall street. How? She says she will use the same tools we are already using.