Big Losers in Iowa: Trump, Polls, and Demo-…
…crazy, baby, like WOW, brother, like don’t f*ck with my ETERNAL NOW, sister, feeling the Bern and the rising tide, of the coming revolution and time on our side, blows against the empire and folks too proud to beg, quinoa muesli tofu granola and the gluten-free fertilized free-range yolk-free three-minute egg, man…
So Trump takes his lumps like he planned it that way all the time, but the Big News is that he lost; not that Cruz is any better, for those of us of liberal bent, badly bent but not yet broke, thank you. Cruz is an ignorant moron, too, of course, but he can be beaten (thank you, evangelicals!). The Big Scare for those of us with working cerebellums was that Trump would run the primaries and it (the Republican primaries) would all be over before it really even started, and we Dems would be left to our own best guesses and the vicissitudes of Fate to determine whether we’d live or die, and how and why…
But that won’t happen now, and by the time Trump’s lost two or three primaries, even if he’s won the same amount, he’ll likely give up, given the odds of losing, because if there’s one thing Trump’s not: it’s a loser; quitter maybe, but not loser. Narratives can always be adjusted and back-filled to mitigate any lack of initial logic, but defeat is hard to finesse and explain away. That, of course, depends on who the Democratic nominee is shaping up to be…
So why do we Democrats have this death wish that refuses to quit? Why do we insist on being the losers that Repubs portray us as? Call us idealists, call us starry-eyed optimists, call us die-hard revolutionaries, call us conscientious objectors, but mostly… call us for a good time: 867-5309. Okay, so let’s call it idealism. That’s a good narrative.
We blew it with Ralph and Al back in 2000 just like we blew it with George Mc back in 1972, when liberalism actually did have the moral high ground and some wind in its sails. We don’t have that luxury now, what with two Republican houses of Congress, and a redneck agenda ascendant unlike any time since 1952. We’re hanging on for dear life, with the paradigm shifts that are changing life patterns unlike any time since the Civil War. You can’t just ‘break up the banks’ and expect all our problems to be solved.
Full disclosure: I like Bernie Sanders, but his campaign is guilty of a fundamental deceit—that by rattling the financial world to its foundation, not only can we get get economic justice, but we can gain real wealth—yeah, right. Fact is: even if Bernie were able to do what he wants, which he can’t, not only would it not likely yield any increase in wealth, it would likely yield less. Did you notice that the US economy only picked up after Barack Obama was re-elected, when they finally gave up their pouting post-Dodd/Frank position?
Now, that’s fine by me, the ‘slow-growth’ and ‘no-growth’ that used to be all the rage back in the idealistic 70’s; remember that? That’s not even mentioned these days, with the possibility that it might curtail iPhone and driver-less car production. But that’s exactly what we need, slow growth, if we’re ever going to get a step ahead of global warming. There’s only one problem: jobs. Cooling economies mean fewer jobs and lesser-paid ones—sound familiar?
I figure that anyone with a garden has a job; but is that what you want? It’s what I want, but I’m not dependent on a weekly paycheck, like so many are. So it’s not really on the table—not now, at least. And Bernie’s got no magic wand, last time I checked. But for some reason, we’re programmed to think that we should ‘vote our conscience’ or ‘follow our passion’ or some such Judeo/Christian European/democratic nonsense.
So Bernie and his ‘true believers’ accuse Hillary of being a ‘corporatist’, whatever that is, without mentioning that Bernie is, also. I haven’t heard the Bern talking about communes and collectives and other examples of ‘sharing economies’. No, he’s talking about unions—and corporations, the standard model economic theory of the 20th century, a paradigm long gone. We need new paradigms and new role models. Most of all, with two houses of Congress in Republican hands, we need a Democratic President—badly.
Does anyone really think that Bernie has a better chance of beating Trump in a potential match-up? Look at how badly the polls were wrong in Iowa. It defies logic. More importantly, will disaffected Republicans abandon Trump or Cruz for Bernie? That’s extremely doubtful. Many might go for Hillary, though. Because they’ve already said so. Are speeches for Goldman Sachs evidence of sleeping with the enemy? That sounds like some sh*t Republicans would pull. Hey, work’s work, unless she has indeed been bought and sold, which there is no evidence of.
Bernie’s people and the ‘alternative media’ are guilty of the same thing they accuse the ‘mainstream’ media of—rigging the election. Hmm, that sounds a lot like the ‘rigged economy’ that Bernie speaks of often with no further explanation required, simply a nod of the head, as in conspiracy theory. Yes, conspiracy theory finally has a modern candidate, first one since the anti-Masonic party back in the early 1800’s. Me, I’ll vote for reason and rationale. I’ll probably vote for HRC.
streaming consciousness... 
Reply