The mariner is pleased with the debate between Bernie and Hillary. For the first time in any 2016 presidential debate, republican or democrat, the voter was given a clear view of the personality and talents each candidate will bring to the office of President in 2016.
The heart of each candidate, that is, their desire to deliver to the electorate what is most needed by that electorate, is identical. Both are champions of human need, economic reform, and what’s best for the forgotten majority.
For the first time, the agenda of each candidate became clear. Bernie intends to fix the systemic issues that have led to oligarchy. Banks, Corporations, tax reform, bribery and collusion in the election process, and a plan to attack gerrymandering, are at the top of Bernie’s list. By fixing the political abuses, proper legislation and discretionary funding will right themselves and deliver programs to the people. However, Bernie will be prone to compromise when it comes to program specifics.
Hillary intends to develop programs first. She will attack current legislation that defeats the spirit of discretionary funding. Hillary will prioritize human rights, expand education funding, and reduce medical costs – but not through single payer. By fixing specific programs, the Ship of State trims its sails more in line with public interest. However, Hillary will be prone to compromise when it comes to fixing the oligarchy.
If the voter is interested in the programs of government, then Hillary sounds more appealing. If the voter is interested in the policies of governance, then Bernie sounds more appealing. The mariner is reminded of one of his father’s pop psychology tools: Bernie is a why-how person while Hillary is a how-what person1. That being the case, there are far more how-what folks in the population than why-how. For no other reason than the difference between their personalities, Hillary may fare better once the primaries leave liberal states and head into the prairie.
On such subliminal attributes, political success rises and falls.
REFERENCE SECTION
1For more detail on Pop’s Psychology, see post from December 21, 2015.
The Congress has ninety days to vote for or against a fast track of the TPP trade agreement. Mariner is firmly opposed to fast track and prefers that the TPP be examined by Congress – that’s as close as citizen review is possible. Note that the majority of presidential candidates, including both democrats, are opposed to the trade agreement. For a good, clear, and easy read about the TPP, see:
President Obama is in favor of the TPP because, in his opinion, the TPP makes the United States a central player in future Asian economics, dampening the future influence of China. All well and good – but at what price to the common citizen? Corporations will have unfettered control of profits, taxes, human rights, and the future wellbeing of nine nations.
Ancient Mariner
Good one! Thanks for the clear descriptions.
I cannot believe how Hillary Clinton will “change her position” to the prevailing winds. Does she really stand for anything? She campaigned for the TPP, calling it the “Gold Standard” of treaties, but now she’s against it.
She claims she “led the charge” against Wall St after the financial collapse, but has received more money from Wall St. firms($17 million last year alone) than any other political contributor.
I am a lifelong Democrat, a proud bleeding heart liberal, and every time I hear her speak on television, I want to throw a chair through it.
In past posts, the mariner defined Hillary as an ‘old school’ politician. It seems the news media is picking up on the word ‘establishment’ with the same meaning. Since the reversal of Glass/Steagall under Bill and Alan Greenspan, the Clintons appear to be in good graces with the big banks. Her association with Wall Street marks her as a candidate with sympathies – if not conscious intent – for the status quo. I understand your frustration.