All Articles All Articles

Surprise! Surprise! Sanders Endorses Clinton

Surprise! Surprise! Sanders Endorses Clinton

By Dennis Loo (7/13/16)

Newly added material as of 9 pm Pacific.

As I wrote back in November, 2015 in "On Elections in an Empire":

For sure Sanders is not going to be the Democratic nominee and for sure he is in the race objectively to draw the very disaffected into the illusion that they have a voice until the time comes when Sanders bows out gracefully and endorses Hillary. And then all of those or most of those who have been so energized by his candidacy will swallow the poison pill of "realism," and vote for Clinton, the "lesser evil." Never mind that the Democrat is not the lesser evil than the Republican, just the more reasonable and less reactionary sounding one, but no less an imperialist in their policies.

What did Sanders say today on GMA?

“No, it's not about the lesser of two evils,” Sanders said before listing a number of issues, including minimum wage, college affordability and health care, where he said his formal rival would help working families.


“I think what Secretary Clinton is going to have to do is get around the country and contrast her views to Donald Trump's,” Sanders said. “This is not a beauty contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton. This is the fact that the middle class* of this country is in trouble. Which candidate has more to say about education, more to say about health care, more to say about climate change … and the more the people hear the contrast between the two, I think Secretary Clinton's support will grow.”

What a shill!

People are widely horrified that Trump is a legitimate candidate for president on the GOP ticket. And they are right to be so. But this does not then mean that you should turn to Hillary Clinton to "stop" Trump from becoming president.

If elections did anything useful, they would make them illegal. Participating in elections, even to the minimal degree of voting alone, means you are legitimating the fraud of elections and inviting the subsequent inevitable charge that you endorsed what either candidate ends up doing when in office, either by voting "for" a bindless platform, the "wrong" candidate, or by not voting at all and supposedly making you blameworthy for not voting.

As I wrote in Globalization and the Demolition of Society

Does the advice we get on health care over the mainstream media give us enough scope, depth and detail to allow us to treat ourselves and be our own physicians? Certainly not. Why would political advice dispensed via mainstream media and existing governmental institutions be any better? Is it reasonable to expect that reliance upon the major parties’ campaign pitches and the injunction “just vote” could possibly be all you need to know to change society? The richest 85 individuals in the world have more wealth than the bottom fifty percent of the world’s population. If you had such extreme wealth and power and enjoyed your luxuries more than justice, would you let your possessions be subject to the whims of the principle of “one person, one vote?” Would you let your extraordinary wealth be outvoted? You would be crazy to do so. (Pp. 23-24)

Let's be real here, shall we? Voting does no good and in fact does harm by your legitimating the fraudulent sham. Mobilizing others and participating in various forms of protest and exposures of what's really going on, on the other hand, really does something. 

Even if the POTUS, whoever it ends up being, sincerely wanted to do what they promise - remember Obama's first promise, to close GITMO within a year, and all of his other promises of "hope and change?" - that's so yesterday and forgotten, with Hillary not even approaching the degree of promises that Obama made. Note she isn't even rhetorically promising much and Obama broke all these promises. But even if the POTUS truly wanted to change things, s/he couldn't because they are the titular head of a vast bureaucracy that isn't subject to the wishes of even the chief executive, to be transformed into something very different. That's not how vast bureaucracies work and it is most especially true of the intricate bureaucracy that is the greatest Empire since Rome! 

To address another core aspect of this question, the actual relation between individuals and the systems they lead, see this excerpt:

Why Seeing Systems is So Hard

By Dennis Loo (5/24/14)

Speaking both as a teacher and as an activist, the single most difficult thing for people to learn is the significance of systems. People are so accustomed to the notion that individuals determine everything - they are, after all, taught this constantly by popular culture, the political and economic system, and by all too much of education - that there is substantial resistance to grasping systems’ centrality. Even those who endorse the primacy of systems (e.g., sociologists) mostly do not consistently apply this principle in their work or in their personal lives.

You can find many academics’ books and articles, for example, which do a tremendous job of laying out how systematic racism, sexism, class, economic exploitation, etc., are and how they structurally determine people’s lives. Yet when these authors get into offering solutions to these systemic problems they almost all offer prescriptions for solving these intractable problems in non-systemic ways. Since the problems are systemic in nature - which they have devoted 90% of their writing to showing - these problems cannot possibly be solved following non-systemic routes. Their prescriptions are therefore entirely illogical and will never work. The only way to solve system-level problems is to replace those problematic systems with radically different systems.

Why should this be so hard for even those who make it their profession to study the systemic nature of these problems? The primary answer is that even intellectuals whose stock and trade is ideas are hemmed in in their thinking by the reigning system’s power. It’s one thing to identify, chronicle, and decry the terrible injustices of the existing system’s operations. It’s another thing altogether to advocate what amounts to a revolution to change that system. For that is what a radical systemic change is: a revolution. Most people, even radically minded intellectuals, shrink from the logical conclusion to their piercing critiques because the ramifications of their investigations means that they have to put themselves in open opposition to existing authorities. And that, most people are unwilling to do, at least under the circumstances that exist most of the time where an insurgent, revolutionary movement is not present. It takes particularly brave individuals to buck convention. Humanity relies disproportionately for its fate on the role of these particularly brave individuals.

There is another reason why seeing systems’ centrality is so hard for so many people. You have to think and analyze things scientifically to be able to recognize the hidden working of systems on people’s thinking and actions. This is because systems are not obvious to the eyes, any more than culture is obvious in its impact on people’s behavior. Culture is a system that governs how people in a given culture will interact with each other. The rules for that culture are largely unwritten and operate to the untrained eye in invisible ways. Culture as a system is as invisible to most people as water is to fish. If you were to ask a fish what water is and if the fish could understand your question, it would look at you with its big eyes and think to itself, “what are you talking about?” since water is invisible to fish. You would have to have been a fish that had briefly been out of the water where it could no longer breathe for it to grasp the elementary yet elusive fact that water is what it lives in.

Applying the methods of science and thinking scientifically is not something that people can learn to do merely through life experience. It is not something that most people can learn how to do through reading even a lot of books, although some people discover this that way. Grasping scientific principles such as the existence of systems that exist above the individuals in them and that powerfully shape how people think and act without individuals being conscious of this is not something that is easily learned by most people. Many sociology students – people who are actually studying the science of sociology - are unfortunately still unaware of the cardinal importance of systems. Some of them even explicitly reject the idea of sociology as a science and believe that sociology is no better than a belief system akin to religion.


* Notice that the term "working class" is never used by Democrats ever, even by a so-called "socialist!" A fine socialist Sanders is, who cannot even mention ever the "working class" who are supposed to be your primary audience and who you are doing what you are doing on behalf of most of all if you are indeed a socialist. 


Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.

Security code