By coincidence, I was ready to publish this diary on the day of the witch hunt. I refrained, even before I read and recc'd "To every Democrat on October 22nd: support Hillary Clinton" (361 recs), a sincere plea from a Sanders supporter to put aside differences on that day. Later I read and recc'd a lovely thank you diary (307 recs) from a different Sanders supporter to acknowledge that we did it: we showed our ability to come together as Democrats and allow the GOP to show themselves for what they sadly but truly are: the enemy. Clinton's triumph was so good to see.
The motivation for this diary comes from something less inspiring: the difficulty we have when we disagree among ourselves, and more specifically, the difficulty we have hearing and considering points raised by others who prefer a different candidate than we do at this point. As corny as it sounds, I want to vote for the best candidate, not "have my team win". I know I am not alone in that desire; as a group we liberals are often mocked for being so cerebral when compared to conservatives, as if being thoughtful is actually a flaw to be reviled. And yet I wonder sometimes if there is in fact a tribal instinct in every human's DNA that calls us to "support our own" on certain occasions. I don't understand that instinct or its boundaries.
In particular, I wonder when exactly does it happen that we "lock in our vote" for a preferred candidate, regardless of what is said about them? At what point in time do we determine that any and all negative information that we hear must be a bunch of dirty lies told by scheming opponents who are simply out to achieve their own nefarious goals? And since they are merely lies told by those who are obviously ethically challenged, the most logical thing to do with such hearsay is to ignore it.
For the record, I prefer Sanders at this point, but I will vote for Clinton in 2016 if she becomes the Democratic nominee. I was dismayed at the response I saw when another Sanders fan wrote:
I have never seen a more cynical example of what happens to many of our elected officials when they have to deal with the pressures of big money lobbyists. in a diary on a subject that speaks to my heart: the increasing ownership of our government by the 0.001%. As it turns out, in my diaries the most frequent tag is Oligarchy (I learned that about myself here on DKos). So I recc'd this diary, then watched as a Clinton fan recognized/interpreted these same words merely as an attack on "their guy"; they responded/deflected accordingly, but without really addressing the meat of the issue. I've also seen a diarist who shared concerns about Clinton and TPP be quickly derided as a "concern troll"; the idea is to attack the reputation of the person who is raising the issue, rather than the issue itself.The point of this diary is not to simplistically say Sanders=Good and Clinton=Bad. Nor is it to castigate Clinton fans while I put Sanders fans up on pedestals, because I have no doubt there are many other diaries that could be cited where the roles are reversed. Often I get very depressed about the realities of human nature and our ability to work together for the common good. My point is to share an observation: those of us in the Sanders and Clinton camps seem to be engaging in two different conversations. We are essentially talking past each other instead of truly listening to what I believe are primarily attempts to educate. It is as if there are elephants in the room but with a twist: one camp is terrified of the creature they "see" (and/or strongly suspect is there), while the other camp doesn't seem to acknowledge that the creature might even exist.
I am reminded of what I see happening between Black Lives Matter (BLM) and the "All Lives Matter" (ALM) crowd. Here the elephant is the evidence that police abuse is real, wide-spread, and primarily aimed at PoC. One side is doing their best to shine a light on this massive creature, while the other appears blissfully ignorant, unconcerned, and/or in denial that it is there. ALM's insistence on changing the frame to one of semantics (BLM vs ALM) seems to be a technique used to silence and/or deflect legitimate points that BLM has raised. Changing/ reframing the topic to something other than the elephant essentially ends discussion about the elephant (I'll say more on this later), at least for a moment. Eventually the side that can see will restart the discussion when another elephant sighting occurs, and then the cycle repeats. New shocking evidence is presented, which is then promptly criticized and/or ignored if it hasn't been delivered in the precisely acceptable frame.
So how does this relate to the struggle between the Sanders and Clinton factions? In this case the elephant is the issue of the increasing power of the 0.001% (and what remains of our so-called "democracy"). Many of us who support Sanders are fearful that Clinton primarily works on behalf of her rich donors instead of the 99%, and that she is only one of many such politicians in Washington who does this. Our "democracy" is seriously broken; it now takes such enormous sums of money to win elections that most politicians have been trained to act in ways that successfully reap sufficient, and continued, contributions from sugar daddy donors. Our system is really one of legalized bribery, and it is generating a nightmarish result: control of our government is being sold to the highest bidder. In fact, a recent Princeton Study found that
majority-rule democracy exists only in theory in the United States -- not so much in practice. The government caters to the affluent few and organized interest groups, the researchers find, while the average citizen's influence on policy is "near zero." Emphasis mine. h/t to thirty three and a third for mentioning this study. More below the orange sugar cube ...