Transparency and Journalism: Key Pieces of Democracy

Democracy, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary: “a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity…are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly…”

Democracy, one of the most romantic political notions in existence. This fanciful idea that the people of a country can participate and be properly represented by their political institutions. There are many democratic governments throughout the modern world, but many of them are missing two key pieces for a truly representative government: transparency in the motivations and decision-making of government officials as well as accurate and honest journalism. Journalism is key to informing people on the government’s operations and is one of the primary tools of the population to keep the government and elected officials honest. Transparency is essential because the people must know what they are actually voting for and not just be force fed the propaganda most political campaigns run on today.

In order for a democracy to truly serve the people, journalistic standards must be raised in order to maintain the government’s integrity. By critically and honestly reporting on government officials and their actions, journalists can be a driving force behind democracy by keeping the population informed and ensuring that government officials operate with the awareness that their policies will be put under the spotlight. Unfortunately, the demise of journalism is one of the many factors contributing to the decay of our democracy. Media has become a key cog in the establishment apparatus; its role being to misinform and distract the population over government policies and decisions. By ensuring that the majority of the population has been robbed of easily accessible information, the media can assist in manipulating the vote of millions of people.

If journalism is to have the ability to inform the people, a certain level of transparency must be established in the government. Without transparency, the information is unavailable for either journalists or the people to inform themselves on government operations. Along with the deterioration of journalistic standards, the beginning of the 21st century has witnessed the dramatic decrease of transparency within government institutions, at least in the United States. This is not to say that the entire government hides behind a veil of sinister secrecy. Bills are available for the people to peruse and the votes for or against these bills are also available. However, the motivations and the ‘behind-the-scenes’ politics of whom finances the legislators pushing for those actions are pretty well shrouded. Behind-the-scenes politics have always existed and are natural to a democratic system in which negotiations and compromises must be reached, but there must be some sort of peep-hole through which the people can have some idea of the deals in government.

Transparency and journalism are key factors to democracy that allow the people to remain informed and keep the government in check. In order for a democratic form of government to truly serve its constituents, the people must have the means with which to monitor the government. Along with developments in campaign finance, the decline of journalism and transparency in government has led to the majority of the population being easily manipulated. This has ensured that the people are separated from actual policy-making decisions while also transforming campaigns into soap operas instead of chances for discussion over policies and their possible effects. Without those two pillars, a government of the people, by the people, for the people is a virtual impossibility.

Nevada’s (Un)Democratic Convention

The 2016 presidential primaries have been the most memorable in years; their problems have come under intense scrutiny as two anti-establishment candidates wage a political war on their respective parties. The throngs of Bernie and Trump supporters have seen their candidates struggle against antiquated and autocratic party machinations to differing degrees of success. The schemes of the Democratic elite to acquire the nomination for Hillary regardless of people’s voices reached a new low at the Nevada Democratic Convention. Following high-profile incidents such as the Arizona primaries and the purging of thousands of Brooklyn voters, the Democratic establishment continues to trample the voices of its members with impunity; like a donkey oblivious to the hundreds of flies flitting across its body.

The exact narrative of the Convention is confusing and difficult to follow thanks to the fact that most media is either blacking out the injustices or spinning the story to place the blame on people outraged at the obvious suppression of their voices. What can be gleaned from the litany of social media posts(unreliable sources) and videos(perhaps more reliable sources) is that the Nevada Democratic Party took several actions to ensure that Hillary walked away with as many delegates as possible. Such measures included, but are not limited to, the ejection of 64 delegates for not having “the proper credentials” and ignoring motions for a recount(which is illegal; a motion cannot be ignored). This disaster of a convention culminated in the Nevada Democratic Party Chair leaping up on stage, passing several motions while disregarding the objections and fleeing from the scene of the crime. Police then arrive and everyone is told to leave or risk arrest.

Another tool that has disproportionally aided Hillary Clinton in this primary campaign has been the use of closed primaries or caucuses. Despite disagreeing with it, I can see the constitutional argument for closed primaries. However, the events of the Convention are an absolute disgrace. Rather than continue to use ‘legal’ methods to suppress voters, the Democratic Party has resorted to openly trampling on the idea of a democratic process. On Saturday, hundreds of voices were silenced to ensure that the party candidate won; so long as We the People allow such political atrocities to be openly committed without retribution, the system will continue suppressing people and destroying any last vestiges of democracy.

The notion of a democratic process in the United States is a fantasy, but to witness such blatant tampering of the process is in equal parts chilling and demotivating. The events of the Nevada Democratic Convention show that in our modern ‘republic’, the people are simply bystanders to the political process run by wealthy backers. Disregarding the Bernie vs Hillary narrative involved here, this was an injustice committed against citizens who were simply trying to participate in the political process. Regardless of your party or candidate affiliation, you ignore what happened at the Convention at your own risk.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

 

 

 

The Four Pillars of American Politics: Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear

“Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this nation. The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.But I don’t want to see the Republican party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny — Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could – simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.”

-Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Declaration of Conscience 1950

The Declaration of Conscience was a reply to the repressive climate of the Red Scare and McCarthyism which, according to Senator Smith, threatened the four basic principles of Americanism: the right to criticize; the right to hold unpopular beliefs; the right to protest; the right of independent thought. The speech fell on deaf ears as that same year marked the outbreak of the Korean War. Her warnings continue to fall on deaf ears; Senator Smith unwittingly summarized how modern American, particularly Republican, politics function. A demagogue running a presidential campaign under the banners of the Four Horsemen threatens to take the whole race. Meanwhile, the hysteria and irrational fear of Muslims bears many similarities to the climate of hysteria Senator Smith found herself in.

Though the fear of Islam has not assumed an institutional form which was the core of McCarthyism, the paranoias and hatred which drove McCarthyism are clearly gaining traction in a large portion of the population. Nowhere is this more evident than Donald Trump’s successful Republican primary campaign in which he managed to trample eleven competitors on his way to the Republican nomination. At many times, the Republican party has actively tried to hinder Trump’s campaign; showing that his campaign is a populist movement opposed by the established party apparatus. His calls for banning Muslims entry into the US were met with opposition by a majority of the population but struck a chord with some voters and signaled his intent to play on people’s fear of terrorism, particularly groups such as ISIS.

Trump’s entire campaign seems to be based on the Four Horsemen of Modern American Politics. He has played on people’s Fear. This includes fear of Islamic terrorists as well as Mexican immigrants. His manipulation of Fear is driven by his understanding and participation in people’s Ignorance. Rather than recognizing that the entire Islamic religion is not inherently violent or dangerous, they allow themselves to be drawn into irrational hatred of a group of people different from themselves. Rather than recognizing that immigrants, particularly from Mexico, are vital to our economy, they choose to accuse these ‘invaders’ of stealing their god-given jobs, etc. These two factors drive the Third Horseman forward: Bigotry. Trump’s campaign and it’s supporters have been very successful by attacking anyone with differing views; the list includes Hillary Clinton, Islam, Hispanics, and Black Lives Matter. This leads us to the last Horseman, Smear. Where to start? You could start with his branding of rivals as Lying Ted and Crooked Hillary. In fact, feel free to browse through a list of 210 things Trump has insulted on Twitter; that doesn’t include all of his smear tactics in speeches, just Twitter.

Yet, Trump’s campaign doesn’t significantly alter the general strategy of modern political campaigns, he has just taken it further than others have previously been willing to go(and has clearly benefitted from it). Consider that Trump’s main rival for the Republican nomination, Ted Cruz, was stating he would ‘carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion’. A policy statement which clearly is not possible and only serves to play on people’s fear of Islamic terrorist groups. Then there is the seemingly endless smear campaign that President Obama is, at the end of an eight-year tenure, still grappling with. Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear have become mainstays in American politics; Donald Trump has simply taken them to an entirely new level in order to combat an established hierarchy.

In 1950, Senator Smith proclaimed that campaigns built around the Four Horsemen would never prosper in the United States due to the American people refusing to tolerate political exploitation over national interests. Yet, US politicians have increasingly used them as a crux on which to run elections. This pattern has reached its apex in the 2016 Republican primaries, with candidates discussing the size of each other’s sexual organs over foreign policy issues and the widening financial gap between the haves and the have-nots. It is now too late to change the political campaign culture to prevent a demagogue gaining traction; but even if he doesn’t win the general election in November, Trump is a warning that the government and the people cannot afford to ignore. Ignore the root causes of Trump’s success and we may one day find ourselves under fascist rule.

 

 

 

Open Letter to the Anti-CU Movement

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address 1863

Citizens United. Possibly one of the most catastrophic Supreme Court decisions in recent history; it has removed any lingering form of restraint on corporations’ ability to influence politics to a greater degree than most citizens. It has rapidly accelerated the demise of our already decaying democratic institutions. The first step that must be taken by We the People to reclaim our democracy must be to reverse this decision. Though corporations already held great sway in Washington before Citizens United, the decision has drastically increased their hold on politics. The only viable way to reverse Citizens United is by passing a Constitutional Amendment fundamentally altering how campaigns are financed and restricting corporate personhood.

Since the Citizens United decision, several movements and PACs have sprung up across the United States to push for such a Constitutional Amendment. Groups such as Wolf-PAC, Move to Amend, the Coffee Party, etc. This array of groups has been created and fuelled by We the People, citizens like you and I who wish to see government truly represent the people rather than the elite and their corporations. Initially, it was the best course of action to have several separate groups who could attract strong bases of local support across different areas of the United States. However, we have now reached a point where these groups will potentially be competing with each other to attract more volunteers. Now is the time for these groups to united under one banner and use their combined force to initiate a massive push for an Amendment.

“If our people fight one tribe at a time, all will be killed. They can cut off our fingers one by one, but if we join together we will make a powerful fist.”

-Sitting Bull

Though they may have different tactics, differing ideas on what should be the wording of the Amendment, and even different political allegiances, these groups must unite under one banner to ensure the success of their movement. Countless times there have been well-intentioned movements which have failed to achieve their goals due to infighting and the eternal search for glory that some revolutionaries are consumed by. Set your differences and ideas of historical acclaim aside and band together to ensure that your movement succeeds. Eighty years from now, when our children and their children look back on this push to restore democracy, will it be a story of different groups setting aside their differences for the greater good; or will it be the tragic story of infighting and an ultimately doomed and fractured movement?

On Autocratic Political Parties

“…in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.”

-Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796

In 1796, George Washington unwittingly predicted how our entire political system would be shaped. This prediction came when he was warning the people of the dangers of domestic factions and their potential influence in government. These comments came to light after a tenure that was partially defined by vehement infighting between Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. In the 220 years since then, the modern Democratic and Republican parties have formed and come to define our political system and how people relate to it. Washington’s fears of parties prioritizing their interests over the people’s has manifested in previously unimaginable degrees. Political parties, along with corporate influence, are now one of the greatest obstacles we face in reclaiming any form of true representation.

In democratic forms of government, it’s perfectly natural for people to gravitate to groups of like-minded individuals to pursue political agendas. It’s part of our Bill of Rights: freedom of association. However, the population needs to view these parties as independent entities that are seeking to further their own aims, which may or may not coincide with the people’s interests. When the lines are blurred between political parties and government, parties are able to dictate how the government functions. The government which is meant to be an impartial mouthpiece for the people then becomes an organ designed to keep these parties in power and prevent new parties or political views from establishing themselves in government matters. Parties are an organic piece of democracy, but great measures should be taken to prevent them from hijacking the government intended for the people.

One does not have to look further than the parties’ presidential primaries to see that they are actively ensuring that only the entrenched party elite have influence on party proceedings. The current presidential primaries are an excellent example to examine considering they both star an anti-establishment candidate fighting against party forces to gain the nomination. On the Democrat side, you have the most devious and undemocratic form of fighting grassroots movements: superdelegates. Superdelegates are delegates that are not subject to the popular opinion of their assigned state. Historically they have voted with the popular opinion(considering it would be disastrous PR to sway a primary away from the popular vote) but they are a tool designed to ensure that popular movements that go against party interests are quelled. The Chair of the DNC(Democratic National Committee) calmly admitted as much: “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.”

The desire for the party to pursue its own interests is completely natural; they are, after all, their own independent organizations. However, the US election system hinders the development of new parties that seek to break the political hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans. This prevents many views from being represented in government and, so long as the parties try to reduce influence from non-members in their primaries, leaves many voters estranged. The US needs to move to away from the winner-takes-all voting system we currently have to promote the growth of new parties and allow for more people’s interests to be represented in government decisions. Independent voters now account for 39% of registered voters; we need to reform our system to ensure that those people have a say in how they are governed.

Though political parties are a natural conduit for people in democratic governments, the political duopoly in America is an impediment to the people’s interests and must be overthrown. Drastic voting reformation is needed if an ever-increasing block of estranged voters is going to be given their due right of representation.

 

Correct the Record’s Attack on Bernie Supporters

On the eve of crucial presidential primaries littered across the north-east, Clinton super-PAC Correct the Record engaged in a coordinated attack on several popular Bernie support groups. Pro-Bernie Facebook groups began disappearing en masse; leaving hundreds of thousands of people wondering what on earth was happening. It’s possible that this attack was not funded by CTR, but considering the coordination required to take down so many pages so quickly(during a Democratic town hall and the day before key primaries) it’s highly likely the attack was at least instigated by CTR. Seemingly not satisfied with voter purging, Clinton and her allies are setting a dangerous new precedent of silencing people’s voices on social media.

According to CTR’s website, they aim to combat online harassment of Hillary and her supporters by spending $1 million on a diverse team of “former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers, Ready for Hillary alumni, and Hillary super fans who have led groups similar to those with which the task force will organize.” The stated intentions are admirable enough; we are all aware of people’s incredible capacity for hatred and abuse on the internet. However, the actions this movement is taking are silencing the voices of Bernie Sanders’ supporters. These attacks are baseless as thousands of reports of ‘threats of violence’ are taking down Bernie support groups on social media. The baselessness of these attacks is clear when one considers that the groups were reactivated by Facebook a few hours later.

The super-PAC’s coordinated strike at support groups should be considered a dangerous new precedent on campaign finance and strategy. The ability to take down groups in support of political rivals on social media is a direct threat to our First Amendment rights. Facebook is privately owned, and therefore private space; but so long as these groups adhere to the company’s terms of use, their right to peaceably assemble should be protected by the Constitution. In 1920s Germany, the Sturmabteilung(more commonly referred to as ‘Brownshirts’) was formed. Among this group’s primary responsibilities were the protection of Nazi rallies and assemblies while also disrupting the meetings of other parties. The parallels between the actions by Brownshirts and the actions taken by the CTR to shut down Bernie support groups is terrifying. We are seeing an online 21st-century manifestation of an organized force of bullies(or hackers) designed to shut down the voice of opposing views. I do not believe Clinton is a modern manifestation of Hitler, but the actions of this super-PAC and ‘Hillary super fans’ is still worrying and should be addressed immediately.

Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson pointed out to the Daily Beast:

“SuperPACs aren’t supposed to coordinate with candidates. The whole reasoning behind (Supreme Court decision) Citizens United rests on (PACs) being independent, but Correct the Record claims it can coordinate. It’s not totally clear what their reasoning is, but it seems to be that material posted on the Internet for free—like, blogs—doesn’t count as an ‘independent expenditure.”

Not only is this bizarre, unprecedented movement against online voices a violation of people’s First Amendment rights, it’s also another worrying development in campaign finance. In the past, there has been clear pressure from establishment Democrats that Bernie supporters should vote for Hillary in the general election if she wins the primary. However, if Hillary’s campaign works so hard to silence our voices, why on earth should she expect our vote?

 

Part 3: On Hillary Clinton; Corporate Bastion

The influence of money in politics has been the primary reason for the deteriorating state of our democracy and as corporate influence grows, it threatens to completely crush the democratic rights of anyone unable to pay off politicians with millions of dollars in donations. There is no presidential candidate more firmly entrenched in this legalized form of corruption than Hillary Clinton. In a presidential race with two strong, anti-establishment candidates, Clinton remains a bastion of corporations and the establishment. With her track record of prioritizing private interests over people, Clinton is an ill-suited candidate to solve the threats to our freedom of speech. She is the very embodiment of the perversion of our democracy and would only hasten its imminent demise.

In 2010, Haiti was poised to raise the minimum wage from a paltry $0.22 an hour to a slightly more respectable $0.62 an hour. Naturally, multi-million dollar companies such as Hanes and Fruit of the Loom balked at the idea of moving closer to a living wage for a country where a third of the population is considered food insecure by the World Food Program. It’s estimated that the rise would have cost $1.6 million; this number is pocket change compared to the $211 million in profits reaped from this slave labor. Who came to the defense of the companies in the face of greedy laborers? Hillary Clinton’s State department; which pressured Haiti into only raising the wage to $0.31. That decision ensured that the Haitian laborers continued to stagnate in poverty while the multi-million dollar companies could continue to take advantage of morally reprehensible wages. This decision to prioritize corporate profits over people’s rights is a constant in Hillary Clinton’s political career.

Looking closer to her home, her preference for corporate profits over people’s rights continues to be evident. Hillary Clinton’s support for trade treaties that allow companies to outsource American jobs overseas, one of the primary forces weakening the middle class, is further evidence that she values profits over people. Treaties such as NAFTA and TPP have allowed companies to utilize labor in countries with much lower living costs(and therefore much lower wages) at the cost of jobs for people in America. Despite denying that she ever supported these treaties, comments from strong supporters of the TPP show her stance will likely change once she achieves the nomination. These comments should be met with fear from the American people; those predictions fall in line with her previous support for corporations and tendency to alter opinion based on her donors.

One of the primary economic dangers we face today are the “too big to fail” banks. People such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, former Goldman Sachs executive Neel Kashkari, and Robert Reich are calling for these banks to be split up in order to prevent another financial crash. Among those against such reforms? Hillary Clinton. Why on Earth would she call for the breakup of these banks when they have paid her and Bill Clinton $153 million for speeches and she continues to rake in millions from them in campaign donations? This vested interest in super banks is an indicator that if elected President, she will pursue Wall Street interests that will endanger the fragile economic recovery we are currently managing. As long as she remains indentured to Wall Street, she will not pursue the required changes to our government to restore some sense of democracy and representation.

While on the subject of Wall Street, let’s talk about Hillary Clinton’s undisclosed speeches to Goldman Sachs. I realize many will think that I’m beating a dead horse but it matters to her eligibility as President. The fact that she refuses to release the transcripts should be evidence enough that there is something there that will damage her chances at the nomination. Judging from unofficial reports of the speeches, ‘she sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director’. Those transcripts could be concrete evidence to the people that she is willing to prioritize corporations over the vast majority of the American people.

The release of those transcripts could be the grand unveiling of Hillary Clinton: Corporate Bastion. She has continually shown throughout her political career that she holds no qualms at sacrificing people’s jobs and rights for corporate benefits. The immorality of repressing Haiti’s minimum wage hike paints a portrait of a steely politician indifferent to the suffering of people. Considering that these corporations she has aided in the past continue to virtually fund her entire campaign bid despite her seemingly liberal stance, the American people should be wary of trusting her to represent their economic and social interests over those of the 1% and the corporations they run. One does not need to thoroughly examine her history to find ample evidence of these corporate tendencies. The writing is there on the wall, you just have to be willing to read it.

 

 

 

Part 2: On Hillary Clinton; War-Monger

As we saw in the first piece on Hillary Clinton, there was a time in which she supported the Iraq War; one of the single, most disastrous foreign policy decisions in American history. She has since apologized for her support of that decision; a pale and insignificant gesture when you consider the millions of lives lost because of that conflict. The apology would have more impact if the Iraq War was a singular blip on an otherwise exemplary foreign policy record…but it’s not.

This tendency for war-mongering continued when she ran for president in 2008 and her tenure as Secretary of State. When she was running in 2008 she said, “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” Those comments have eerie similarities to a certain demagogue currently running for the Republican nomination and expose her nature as a ruthless politician who will blindly lead the country into ill-advised conflicts with disastrous consequences.

Seemingly unable or unwilling to learn from America’s involvement in Iraq, Clinton pushed for forcible regime change in Libya as Secretary of State. These involvements in the Middle East have led to an unstable region that amounts to a monumental humanitarian crisis. Not only have these conflicts created a humanitarian disaster, Hillary’s emails show there may have been(almost certainly were) alternative motives to these disasters. Not only were these poor foreign policy decisions, but Hillary’s response to the brutal death of dictator Gaddafi is stomach-churning. “We came, we saw, he died,” followed by laughter. I am not defending Gaddafi in any way(terrible for his people and a walking humanitarian disaster), but to have such a callous disregard for the gruesome death of an enemy is not an admirable trait in a leader.

There are ominous signs on the wall that she still hasn’t learned lessons from American involvements in the Middle East as she is promoting escalating the conflict in Syria(a direct result of previous foreign policy disasters). Rather than promoting diplomacy or an arms embargo to prevent more weapons finding their way into the hands of ISIS, Clinton continues to promote conflict that will have the same results as the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. Her emails show that her primary motivation behind the conflict in Syria is protecting Israel’s nuclear dominance in the region. Isn’t there an aspect of moral repugnancy to hiding those motivations from the public behind the veil of a war on terror? Especially when those decisions lead to thousands of lives being lost and thousands more being displaced from their homes and subsequently denied entry into Europe and the US.

If Hillary Clinton is elected President, America will remain entrenched in unnecessary and futile wars that will only lead to more instability in the Middle East and cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives. The American people must be wary of placing a war-monger with an affinity for forced regime changes in charge of the country during such a delicate time in our foreign relations. The conflict in Syria has potentially massive ramifications for our relations with Russia and the world at large. Decisions taken over this conflict will resonate for decades to come and could potentially turn into a disaster of the same magnitude as the Iraq War. Do we want a politician with such a poor track record leading us through these troubled times?

 

 

Part 1: On Hillary Clinton; Political Chameleon

The presidential election of 1800 spewed forth a fascinating situation in which the two runners for the Democratic-Republicans received the same number of electoral votes. The election was to be decided in the House of Representatives and though Aaron Burr seemed the likely victor from such a situation, Hamilton managed to secure the presidency for his main political rival Jefferson. Why would Hamilton, ideologically and politically opposed to nearly everything Thomas Jefferson stood for, seek to hand his enemy the presidency? Despite endless disagreements with Jefferson, Hamilton saw him as the lesser of two evils when compared to Aaron Burr.

In a letter to Harrison Gray Otis, Hamilton wrote, “Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands.” A similar situation is laid out before us in the current Democratic primary race. On the one hand, you have the opinionated and seemingly idealistic Bernie Sanders; the other is trying to hold the politically amorphous and determined Hillary Clinton. If any hope of preserving our democracy is to survive this presidential election, Bernie Sanders must be the Democratic nominee.

The list of issues on which she has reversed her opinion(ever dependent on the polls) is a perfect illustration of her political malleability. Browse through her evolution on issues such as same-sex marriage, trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP, the Iraq War, and mass-incarceration. The consistent pattern of shape-shifting is a clear indication that she is willing to take any stance that will earn her votes.If we were to elect her as president, which Hillary would we receive? She would no longer need to cater to the voters as much as she currently is required to do; she would be more liable to comply with her donors’ interests.

She criticizes Wall Street and claims she will break up big banks if they continue receiving failing grades from regulators and yet, the financial sector accounted for more than 10% of the $157.8 million contributed to her bid by the end of 2015. On what side will she stand once she has taken office? It’s likely that she will alter her stance to benefit her donors, just like she did with healthcare when Big Pharma paid her more than $2 million for 13 speeches. She used to be a strong advocate for a universal healthcare plan but now wages war on the very same idea she used to defend. This is an indicator of how she will likely behave in the future; with corporate influence seemingly ever-growing in our political system, this prospect should be blood-curdling for the average voter.

The prospect of having a president so clearly invested in her own financial and political standing is terrifying. Clinton will not stand for the people’s rights as president but will bend over backward and jump through hoops to satisfy her corporate sponsors and donors. With our republic already withering under pressure from corporations and excessively wealthy individuals, a Clinton presidency will only condemn our republic to a quiet death covered up by the media(major donors to Clinton’s campaign) with a series of proxy wars initiated under Hillary Clinton: the war-monger.

Generation-Defining Issue

American history is littered with pivotal moments defined by the issues of their time and people fighting on either side of those issues. In the 1960s, it was civil rights and racial equality which featured men like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr etching their names in history. The 1850s/60s were defined by the fight between southern and northern states over state rights and slavery. The media would have you believe that what will define our period of history are the Middle Eastern conflicts with the near apocalyptic movements of terrorist organizations such as ISIS. While no doubt important, perhaps for reasons different from the ones portrayed in the media, these conflicts are merely a symptom of the growing influence of money in political decisions.

It’s important to understand that one of the intrinsic drawbacks of democracy is the potential influence wielded by the wealthy. However, ensuring that there is a system of checks and balances on their influence, like in the rest of our government, should be considered one of the primary responsibilities of a democratic government. In the last 30 years, the American government has gradually succumbed to the influence of private corporations and individuals seeking to influence political decisions for their personal gain. This process seems to have reached its zenith with the Citizens United decision in 2010; an open threat to the voice of We the People. Citizens United led to super PACs that define campaigns and politicians morphing into puppets protecting the interests of an increasingly powerful economic ‘ruling’ class compromised of the top 1% and powerful corporations.

When historians look back on our time period, they will not consider our immoral manipulation of other countries’ governments to protect corporations’ profits the defining issue of our epoch, but rather a symptom of the looming danger of corporate influence. It is of the utmost importance that we take a stand against this movement to protect our voices before they are silenced. It seems nearly impossible to take a stand against an enemy with seemingly limitless resources at their disposal but it will only become more difficult as time passes and the tendrils of money tighten their chokehold on our decaying democracy.

-Cleisthenes

“Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost.” – Rousseau