It's a feature not a flaw. It's a feature not a flaw. It's a feature not a flaw.
How hard is that to remember? Oh, but the pallatable view of the actions of society's powerful that yield negative results is that it is incompetence that yields those results. Not to mention that it's much more empowering to shake one's head at their rule makers' bumbling than to see that one is intentionally screwed, in spite of the paucity of evidence that, in what they set out to do and then do, anyone is making mistakes. At some point you have to ask whether or not they are lying about their desired outcomes. And not just their they, but your they.
Mind you, my criticism here is meant to address the interpretation from certain Sander's supporters in the press. The idea that the Democratic Party is, while being underhanded and corrupt, making a mistake by rallying around Biden ignores the fact that the goal is not to win, but to determine who runs. There's no mistake there.
The spin in the press is all "Wow! Who'd have thought two weeks ago? Looks like South Carolina really bolstered Biden's bonifieds with the voter base." And it's all plausible because you saw it coming. But what did you really see coming?
At the outset, financial donations determine who's reported to be in the horse race, polls are formed, conducted, and reported on accordingly. This reporting is run by corporations bodied by a very wealthy class of people. This wealthy class of people is invited by the party apparatus to help determine the rules for debates and who's in them. Media representatives conduct these debates and analysis polls are conducted and reported on accordingly. Also accordingly, the corporate media dominate the analysis of who's still in the race and who's a long-shot, and then they report without a whiff of irony that donations are bolstered by that same success.
One result of the old-timey, traditional horse race nature of primaries is that anyone whose vote is counted after the winter of all this discontent is essentially disenfranchised. Increased early voting would seem to hint at a solution to this problem, but then who'd tune in to the horse race?
From this we can conclude that there is a class of great wealth that dictate who can be elected. But don't call it a dictatorship. Oligarchy is a fair enough name for it, but there's just something about, in a theoretical democracy, the people's always returning to their belief in the narrative structure that is tantamount to the eternal faith of the populace in their scripture despite the absence of its righteousness.
I'll spare you [if you agree not to read any further] my theory that there's a narrative potential being shaped that involves Sanders getting the nod for November so as to teach everyone an alternative dubious lesson. And like any other spin-able developing story, there are best and worst scenarios of each, one of whose form has already seen allusions to McGovern... or Mondale... or anyone not Bubbya or Bo Rama, i.e. the fellas that got to Washington by way of Wall Street, which is now the middle road. The other form is a rapturous victory that restores faith, yet again, in democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive, as when it's a branding bait & switch.
Whatever their eventual embodiment, our demigods champion this secular society but don't shy away from being seen heading to church on Sunday. Their followers' faith in the sanctity of the value of their predetermined basket of goods is selective. But still.
How hard is that to remember? Oh, but the pallatable view of the actions of society's powerful that yield negative results is that it is incompetence that yields those results. Not to mention that it's much more empowering to shake one's head at their rule makers' bumbling than to see that one is intentionally screwed, in spite of the paucity of evidence that, in what they set out to do and then do, anyone is making mistakes. At some point you have to ask whether or not they are lying about their desired outcomes. And not just their they, but your they.
Mind you, my criticism here is meant to address the interpretation from certain Sander's supporters in the press. The idea that the Democratic Party is, while being underhanded and corrupt, making a mistake by rallying around Biden ignores the fact that the goal is not to win, but to determine who runs. There's no mistake there.
The spin in the press is all "Wow! Who'd have thought two weeks ago? Looks like South Carolina really bolstered Biden's bonifieds with the voter base." And it's all plausible because you saw it coming. But what did you really see coming?
At the outset, financial donations determine who's reported to be in the horse race, polls are formed, conducted, and reported on accordingly. This reporting is run by corporations bodied by a very wealthy class of people. This wealthy class of people is invited by the party apparatus to help determine the rules for debates and who's in them. Media representatives conduct these debates and analysis polls are conducted and reported on accordingly. Also accordingly, the corporate media dominate the analysis of who's still in the race and who's a long-shot, and then they report without a whiff of irony that donations are bolstered by that same success.
One result of the old-timey, traditional horse race nature of primaries is that anyone whose vote is counted after the winter of all this discontent is essentially disenfranchised. Increased early voting would seem to hint at a solution to this problem, but then who'd tune in to the horse race?
From this we can conclude that there is a class of great wealth that dictate who can be elected. But don't call it a dictatorship. Oligarchy is a fair enough name for it, but there's just something about, in a theoretical democracy, the people's always returning to their belief in the narrative structure that is tantamount to the eternal faith of the populace in their scripture despite the absence of its righteousness.
I'll spare you [if you agree not to read any further] my theory that there's a narrative potential being shaped that involves Sanders getting the nod for November so as to teach everyone an alternative dubious lesson. And like any other spin-able developing story, there are best and worst scenarios of each, one of whose form has already seen allusions to McGovern... or Mondale... or anyone not Bubbya or Bo Rama, i.e. the fellas that got to Washington by way of Wall Street, which is now the middle road. The other form is a rapturous victory that restores faith, yet again, in democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive, as when it's a branding bait & switch.
Whatever their eventual embodiment, our demigods champion this secular society but don't shy away from being seen heading to church on Sunday. Their followers' faith in the sanctity of the value of their predetermined basket of goods is selective. But still.
