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

 

 

 

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 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