By Nicholas Riebel || Staff Writer
Hillary Clinton just recently announced she was running for president of the United States of America, for the Democrats. Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio are running on the Republican side. Yet, it seems that there is a very good chance that it will end up being between Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State (in that order, pretty much continuously) and former Floridian Governor Jeb Bush.
Let’s begin by acknowledging the elephant in the room (not intended as a Republican joke): if the general elections comes down to these two candidates (and it almost certainly will, as we only have two major parties in America, and an independent candidate cannot get elected: see http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/bloomberg-on-2012-cant-win/63850/). There is a chance that it could come down to a battle of the dynasties, Clinton and Bush. And since we allegedly live in a democracy rather than a monarchy, it is worth seeing why this is the case, that we should have to choose between one dynasty and the other, and what these dynasties represent.
First, the dynasty that is not a dynasty yet: the Clintons. President Bill Clinton was first elected president by defeating the first Bush to be president, George H. W. Bush (but more on him in a bit). He is generally regarded as a successful president, who oversaw an economic boom, but people forget he encouraged and accelerated Wall Street deregulation, which allowed the “Great Recession” to become possible.
People often complain of ideological gridlock, of hyper partisanship. They (often condescendingly) look at our politicians, and judge them to be stupid children, fighting over silly things while Americans look for true leadership and good laws that help our nation. As usual, this view, shared by both the elite and the public to a greater or lesser extent, is only right for the wrong reasons. Rather than actually understanding politics, even supposed “experts” like to pretend that they know the reason for dysfunction: the presidents don’t golf enough with members of Congress, they don’t drink beer together as much as they should, they should talk more; love of America, and wishing to do the right thing to make our nation better, is a goal we supposedly all strive towards.
There is only partisanship on the less important issues, and the most cordial agreement on the most important: the control of the wealthy and powerful (most notably Wall Street) over our government. This is an issue I have talked at length about elsewhere, but this relates very importantly to the issue of dynasties. Bill Clinton was a Wall Street Democrat, also known as the Third Way, or New Democrat Coalition. President Obama is his spiritual successor. They both pushed for fiscally conservative policies which are making an economic calamity as bad if not far worse than the one we just experienced, and are still only recovering from, increasingly likely.
The ignoramuses (and I use this somewhat “elite-ly”) who claim that our current president is a Marxist, Socialist, and Communist have no idea what they are talking about. Wealthy interests are better served and protected than ever under our president. And Obama apologizers: you know this is true. The “reforms” he totes are little more than annoyances at best to Wall Street, these (such as the Consumer Protection Agency) are ineffective against the overwhelming power of these Overlords. And Jeb Bush, from the Bush Dynasty, will continue and accelerate these fiscally conservative, free market, neoliberal policies.
George W. Bush crashed the economy with his deregulation and other irresponsible policies which have come to characterize American conservatism. His brother, Jeb Bush, will tout economic freedom and prosperity, but it will go towards the very, very wealthiest of us (like him and his family, for example). Hillary Clinton will do the same, but perhaps to a slightly lesser extent. After all, they have to pretend that the Democratic Party and Republican Party are different, when they actually very similar due to being corrupted by Wall Street (although I still maintain that the corruption of the GOP is more thorough, and perhaps so entrenched it cannot be uprooted and have it remain the same party as we know it).
America may think it is choosing between dynasties, and it is. It’s choosing which dynasty will get to fight for not “everyday Americans” but for the interests of Wall Street. Karl Marx, while his historical-economic theory left something to be desired (although it is much mis-understood due in large part to propaganda and confusion surrounding it, partially due to the Cold War and partially due to its complexity, much of his actual arguments and ideas make good sense, such as social security, although his ultimate end of communism is a utopian future that requires would only work if the people were brainwashed into acting in accordance with it) argued that in a two party “democratic” system, the people have two choices: which party will get to advance the interests of the bourgeois at the expense of the proletariat?
At the end of the day we must recognize that greed must be abolished if there is to be justice. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush will just feed the Wall Street fat cats, at our expense. I hope that someone offers an alternative solution to America’s future than giving the rich and powerful more wealth and powerful, which is exactly what they do, by the way, in dictatorships such as the “Communist” states of China and North Korea. The only differences is that our leaders smartly decided to give us some freedom and contest issues such as gay marriage and gun control to keep us distracted from the fact that they ruin our lives with their lust for wealth and power.
I hope Elizabeth Warren reconsiders.