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:
* 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.