Concentration of Power

Ok, you can make the argument that this post is in response to seeing a headline that Rush Limbaugh is ordering his cult to cross the lines and vote for Hillary in Texas. Sheesh.

Clearly, there was a deal made here somewhere. Some money (or another form of concentrated energy) changed hands somewhere.

And in the matter of Clinton vs. Obama, this is demonstrative of the reason why I cannot endorse Hillary Clinton.

It’s not about her shady past, her questionable profiteering, her womanly laundry capability when it comes to stained blue dresses, or anything like that.

It’s about her obvious connection to existing power structures. When Rush Limbaugh of all people is openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton, you know that there is a connection there. This is the existing power structure trying to preserve itself. And it says a lot about how much they fear Obama.

Speaking of Obama, let me take you back for a moment.

It’s 1991. A young Democrat takes the political world by storm, and convinces people that there may indeed be a way out of the oppressive dominance of the Republicans and back to more compassionate, sane values. He was a breath of fresh air and inspired hope when he spoke. He was intelligent, articulate, and conveyed an honest passion that was refreshing from the usual scope of politician of the day.

He wins the election.

/cue Monty Python/

“And there was much rejoicing.” *Yay, hooray*

And from my point of view, not a heck of a lot changed. Capital, (or the corporations, the neocons, whatever you want to call it) expanded its power got wealthier, thousands are people were killed in the name of profit, etc etc. Things did indeed feel better immediately, but I soon realized the rush of euphoria (I can’t believe We(tm) actually won!) wore off quickly. The Clinton Years were, in my mind, characterized primarily by a relief that the velocity of destruction and greed seemed to be slowing.

Before you accuse me of believing that there is no difference between Demicans and Republicrats (yes I voted for Nader in 2000, but don’t worry, Gore “won” Maine) I concede that, obviously, Bush II is “worse” than Clinton. But this is only because Bush is 8 years further down, and at the opposite polar point of, the same trajectory that Clinton rode for 8 years.

I now am aware of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. The 2000 election taught me that, as I’ve written before. They each serve the power structure in different ways. Republicans push the line as far as they can while in power, then the Democrats maintain that power until the next Republican is elected. Lather, rinse, repeat. This give and take is now the sum total of American political consciousness, such that anything that exists outside of this power structure is seen as not valid or “not realistic” or other such dismissal. This dance between the two goes back decades. Think about it:

  • 1992-2000, the Clinton years. The golden age. Wealth, prosperity for many. American didn’t actually invade and occupy any countries, we just bombed them from afar.
  • 1980-1992, the Reagan/Bush years. Destroyed labor unions, several wars, the rich got richer, etc etc.
  • 1976-2000, the Carter Years. End of Vietnam, the country heals after Watergate with another young fresh breath of trustworthy air.
  • 1968-1976, the Nixon Years. Vietnam. Watergate. All kinds of outrageous scandals, corruption, genocide, standard Republican nonsense.
  • 1963-1968, the Johnson Years. Vietnam, and the empowerment of the Military Industrial Complex. This is a Democrat, no less….
  • 1961-1963, the Kennedy Years. Another golden age, another young politician who charms people, etc etc. This one had people feeling so good they killed him for it.

And so on. Push the envelope, then provide some relief because things don’t seem to be plummeting as quickly. Push/pull. Give/take. Take it all together, and over time you see that this energy pattern is a downward spiral.

Anyone who is connected to this energy pattern, this concentration of power, should NOT be voted in to power. Anyone reading this from Ohio (my birth state) or Texas should read this as a suggestion to vote for Obama. There, I’ve officially done my part to counter Rush Limbaugh’s endorsement.

After the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, in general I am not inclined to vote these days. Obama is the only one I would actually vote for, I think. But I know this: I will not limit my participation in American politics to this one event every 4 years.

EDIT: someone pointed out to me that Obama is still very much a part of the system, and I completely agree with this. My point is, at present Obama is less entrenched into the system than Clinton is. Perhaps in 15 years they will be similarly invested. This underscores the point that the problem is with STRUCTURES of power, and not with individual people. This point was brought home by Al Gore; here’s a guy who participated in the atrocities of the Clinton years, who votes Bush into power in 2000 when they stole the election for him, etc etc. Now that he is removed from the power structure, he’s doing good work with his films and environmental activism.

So yes, I am quite suspicious of concentrations of power, and the reason Obama is so attractive is because he is, for the most part, outside of that structure at present. This is also why I am suspicious that things will change, because if he does win the presidency he will then be assimilated into the power structure.

2 thoughts on “Concentration of Power”

  1. Jim,

    I would add that while their policies are pretty similar (and so part of the reason why this contest drags on), Obama has done more to support grass-roots organizing efforts in every state, whereas Clinton has focused on the large-delegate states and ignored the smaller states. I prefer the candidate who at least pretends to listen to the masses. Lesser of two evils.
    Having said that, what we really need to do to effect any real change is to elect new people to Congress. Boot the incumbents and start fresh.

    Democracy is a participatory sport. If you don’t participate, you can’t count on remaining in a democracy. (setting aside for the moment the technicalities of whether the US is a republic or a democracy) (and the argument that since the Congress abdicated their duty to declare war to the president, and the president’s subsequent abdication of whether to continue the war to the generals, it looks like the US might resemble some aspects of a military dictatorship.)

  2. As far as the Clinton years being an age of prosperity, it may be wise to remember it was all smoke and mirrors. “Credit” fueled the Clinton era, as the laws governing the ability to “borrow” were vastly loosened. We are paying for it now.

    Life is not a Democrats good, Republicans bad scenario. If you remember Democrats enslaved Blacks and Republicans freed them. The sword is the free economy. Free in the sense that we can buy at low prices (good), but companies are encouraged to buy from the Chinese (bad).

Leave a Reply