One thing I have regretted about the current presidential race is that no candidate has advocated for the coming-together of the anti-establishment movement or interests on the farther side of the political spectrum in each party respectively. Donald Trump's libertarian-constitutionalist core has not been coaxed to comingle with Bernie Sander's true-progressive base. Unfortunately, most people continue to see the nation's political spectrum as ranging from far-right to far-left. This is a mistake.
In fact, what is under the greatest stress, as can easily be discerned, is neither margin of the spectrum, but wide, corporate status-quo middle, which I call, "The Faux Middle." This wide middle comprises the greater part of BOTH political parties, including NeoCons and NeoLibs, and assorted NeoPuppets; Blue-Dog Democrats; RINO's; and such, along with a vast overarching network of CEOs, billionaires, and tacit colluders throughout the monopoly corporate media, and other Big Business. It is from Big (global-interest) Business and Big Science that GOP and Dem, Faux Middle partisans, get their campaign cash, superPACS, bribes, and golden parachutes. As Donald Trump has said, both sides get money from the same billionaires, simultaneously. Both sides are goaded into performing a charade political food-fight with each other, when in fact they are both buddied up to the same puppet masters, who stand to benefit by their duplicitous charity.
As we have seen in the Republican Party, the Faux Middle has been under great stress. The presumed front-runner, by the status-quo powers that be, was to be Jeb Bush, with all his magical Citizens-United cash. Indeed, way back, early in the campaign, Hillary Clinton was due to hold a debate with Bush, even though her contest with Bernie had barely begun. Talk about presumptuous. This sort of thing is exactly what turns the public against status-quo candidates. In fact, I have followed campaigns closely in the past. I have found that every time a candidate says something like, "We're going to win!", public opinion polls immediately drop for them. So, by now they have learnt not to talk like that too much.
For the more anti-establishment candidates, like Trump and Sanders, this hex is not so severe, since they are seen as underdogs. However, it can happen to them too, as it has to Trump, who now falters behind his own avarice. So, I want to make clear that Bernie needs to be very careful to not make the same mistake, at least much longer, as he gains popularity, but also vulnerability. Hopefully, I will be able to get back to this subject, as it pertains to Bernie, further down in this essey.
When the status-quo Bush Dynasty candidate fell flat, the GOP looked to others. It thought that Marko Rubio would be strong against Hillary, (notice how they are lost in ends, not the current fight?), since he could garner much support from Latino's. Well, that didn't wash either, and the main choice of the higher-ups became Ted Cruz. But Donald Trump has been a complicating factor. And this is why the GOP party elites have made four concerted efforts: To lure Trump into awkward situations; to conduct a media-mitigated smear campaign along with the Democratic establishment; to push for Cruz, who is now #3 in polls for upcoming caucuses/primaries, ha ha, and to deliberately mess with the votes, as occurred in Colorado.
It is perfectly legitimate that Trump should, "whine," about what has happened in Colorado, and elsewhere. The private, party establishment is trying to squeeze him out, because he isn't a true partisan. The same is being promulgated by Democratic Party elites against Bernie Sanders. Both margined have not been in sympathy with each other, over this greater putsch by the wider Faux Middle. By defining things along partisanship, the parties remain play-fighting with each other, largely in collusion behind the scenes, while the margins of Trump and Sanders are, supposedly, divided and conquered.
In Wisconsin, there was a major, almost military, campaign, to promote Cruz and topple Trump. A lot of money went into it. It was backed by the Kochs and other corporate status-quo reapers. Cruz was backed by Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, and other politicians. It is possible that vote-tampering occurred, (as I feel it probably was during the Walker recall effort, and certainly has been in countless other states). It is also likely that Clinton and/or Obama planted a little anti-Trump insinuation here or there. Well, what was the result of this? It was ironic.
Of course, right-wing Wisconsonites tend to be more old-school, and so this GOP campaign was not the sole reason for the Trump loss. However, the end result was this: With Trump down, Bernie gained more strength. I knew Madison progressives, (other than Senator Tammy Baldwin), would support Bernie, but I think there is more to the story. I think that when Hillary gets a little avaricious and tries to tear down Trump instead of concentrating on Sanders, or when the GOP seeks to do the same, Bernie ironically RISES. The anti-establishment - the anti-Faux Middle - gets its victory nevertheless!
It would be hard to analyse this probable phenomenon, with metadata from all caucuses and primaries, because their rules and permissions are so varied. However, I believe that even though there has been no real affinity between the margins, of Bernie and Trump, it is the general Faux Middle which is straining, while either of the margins thence surge upwards like a beach ball from being held under-water. It's kinda like whack-a-mole. The anti-establishment will make itself felt, whether from the "far right" or from the "far left." The corporate Faux Middle falters, hopefully to fade. The margins are, in this way, paradoxically "uniting" in effect, even while Trump and Sanders may be saying little positive about each other.
In fact, there are many issues on which Trump and Sanders basically agree, (as was documented in an NPR bit some months ago. If someone can dig this up, it would be great to post). They both oppose the TPP, and related. They both want to expand social security. And more. These are the important issues. However, not only are their two personal styles somewhat at odd, shall we say, there has been a perpetuation of right-versus-left labelling and rhetoric flying from both camps, enabling the continuation of divide-and-conquer, serving the interests of both party establishments, and with that, the corporate Faux Middle. These labels and assumptions really hamper an overt coming-together of shared interests and stregnths from both sides. The problem is that both camps are assuming the stances of their old party establishments. Thus:
If Trump garners followers from the, "far right," including, "rednecks," then they must be EVEN MORE racist that people on the, "moderate right." So, when Trump urges caution on immigration, (as have some on the left, in fact), this is facilely bankrolled into a charge that he is anti-Moslem. Trump doesn't help this prejudice when his bully pulpit easilly plays into it. And Trump and the media have not really underscored his positions, especially those shared with Sanders. I think he may demure on these, to keep in line with the GOP, and/or to keep the flash going instead.
On the other side, if Bernie is a, "far left," Social-Democrat, that means he is really a Socialist, which means he is a Communist, which means he wants to redistribute the land, control all production, and give away everything for free, even though, e.g., free college or health care are adopted in almost all other well-developed countries, and actually HELP the economy, thus raising tax revenues(!) Maybe Sanders felt he needed to come out against Trump as being, "a divider," but I had really hoped that, and saw sense if, the shared ideas of both margins could have been made clear. There is still time. Even as we speak, Trump is adamantly declaring that the Clinton Democrats have been putting the squeeze on Bernie. At least the public is seeing how each candidate is getting all hell from their respective parties.
Note that I also feel that Bernie has been demurring on much, in order not to step out of line too much, as seen by the Democratic party establishment. His deferences to Clinton have been a bit much for me. But, the public sees him as most likeable, and his gracious patience has surely paid off in their eyes as well, to some degree.
Regarding labels: I have said that both sides started off assuming the worst of the other, as has been the game between the more conventional arms of their parties, the status-quo NeoCons, corporatists, etc., fulfilling their to their duplicitous donors. But, it can be even worse for both margins, some members who may feel a need to excoriate the "far right" or the "far left", because their own political identity depends on it. It depends on them being party fundamentalists. Even when shared issues come up, they immediately jump back into the identity-safety of labelling and blaming.
Listening to Alex Jones for some time, I have seldom heard him explain why he hated Sanders so much. From the start, he called Sanders, "that rat," possibly an anti-Semitic slip. Jones forever flips into decrying how Communists are parasitic bums, and their system always fails. That isn't exactly sophisticated political analysis. However, when it became flagrantly obvious that Sanders has been experiencing the same bully tactics from his party, as Trump has from the GOP, then Alex Jones stood up vociferously against the injustice.
On the other hand, I have heard many examples of liberal talk radio name-calling Trump, along with Hillary, and of NPR constantly making these blithe faux pas for the faux middle, always assuming that Trump should never be taken seriously. In fact, I have heard NPR persons actually admit that they had been carrying around this sort of bias. This is what the entrenched left did regarding candidate Reagan, only to watch in horror as the October Surprise unfolded, and Reagan won. Just imagine if overt and covert partisans actually looked at reality instead of their own reflexions, maybe they could come up with real-world strategies to defeat their opposition, way ahead in the game.
That being said, I feel NPR has been roundly biased against Sanders as well as Trump, and in fact did one hour of talk devoted to the public perception that this has been the case. See my earlier post, which includes a snippet of how NPR talkers so dumbly continue in their biases, even when pointed out by callers, always switching back into pointless horse-race analysis, rather than into hard facts or the issues.
As NPR, and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, and the GOP, and their overlords, and the media talking heads, all commit these facile slips and disingenuous leaps of logic, you can be sure that the heavier-hitters, behind masks and money, are making far more fatal leaps of logic, such that they mess with the lives of dissenters, whistleblowers, challengers, progressives, constitutionalists, etc., or with the lives of their families. These dark conspiracies are as real as those of Clinton and Wasserman-Shultz grabbing up the Super delegates and scheduling debates to not be seen. It is all part of the same corruption. Corruption, and the money behind it, not our votes, is what the falter status-quo, the Faux Middle and the associated party establishments, are what is needed to keep them afloat.
It is ironic that there is all this fissuring in the party establishments, which has so far been held together by corruption, voting-machine tampering, and duct tape, kind of mirrors a fissuring between their somewhat dependent margins.
In fact, the margins do not exist on a continuum of far right to far left. There are people beyond, or outside of "far right" who are just as progressive and non-racists as liberal progressives. And there are progressives and dem-socialists who are not to be blamed for wanting to destroy American Civilisation, and who share values with some libertarians. So long as these marginals believe in this left-right paradigm, they will be trapped and fissured by their own blaming, labelling and name-calling. They will continue to lose, separated, so long as they dutifully play into this rhetoric, and their roles, of their status-quo parties. Thus, their own internal fissuring ironically continues, in contest with that of the faux middle, but with less money, corruption and power to hold it together.
Nevertheless, I hope it can be seen that I see that there is hope for some merging of common interests, goals and alliances between what is mistakenly called, "the far left and the far bright." This is the left-right alliance, or right-left alliance, written about by Ralph Nader in his book, "Unstoppable," and which I have posted about as well, (see my journal's tags). At the moment, this alliance of anti-corporate, etc., interests is pushing its way up, making itself felt, through the obvious unfairness of both parties against Trump and Sanders. I think that this is only a beginning. Why?
Because the Faux Middle is fading. There is a new middle trying to come forth, made up just of working people, the marginalised, the poor, the honest, the real - and it is emerging from BOTH ("far") SIDES of the political spectrum. It is a joining together again of hands across the aisles, of common Americans, who once were the true, non-bought middle. This rising new middle can only happen if we are willing to pull out of the gravitational field of dying parties, and make new friendships and agreements, with people we had for so long assumed to be vile.
PS - I really wanted to write much more, before the NY primary. Hopefully I can get to the library again soon and post some more. I hope you can do as much as you can to help Bernie, with this critical primary. I MEAN CRITICAL. Perhaps there is still time to speed off letters-to-the-editor(?) Whatever you can do. This is the change we have been waiting for. Thanks.
NOTE - For Part Three: QUALIFIED? - Hillary versus Bernie - (Part One)