Posts Tagged ‘Move To Amend’

Why Bernie Continues

May 23, 2016

When a SCOTUS majority decided Citizens United, media world was all a tizzy with speculation as to what the future of politics would be. The Move To Amend folks would like us to believe it will be a safer world if it were otherwise, not unlike the second amendment faithful whose credo is that if everyone carries a gun, society would be more civil and respectful. Then again, there would be no SCOTUS to turn to for a ruling questioning such an amendment as the court is, at present, evenly divided. To complicate matters even more, with the court’s Evenwel vs. Abbott ruling, it reaffirmed the basis of representation (within this representative form of government) to be persons – not specifically limited to those eligible to vote (see this blog A Bridge Too Far 12-13-15). A different definition of personhood may have resulted in a likewise different decision, founding representation on eligible voters and not a census count of persons – creating the dilemma of “free” persons (those who can and do vote) and others (veritable non-entities). This is a crucial distinction to bear in mind with regard to our electoral process (which the Move To Amend folks say is affected by the SCOTUS definition of person). As it stands currently, anyone can have a say. Ruled otherwise, only those who show up to vote have a say. But isn’t that what is actually present today? Jeb Bush had substantial financial backing (that speaks), and dropped out, as eventually did Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, etc. Finally, Ohio’s Governor John Kasich quit the race to represent the people as president because he wasn’t winning (anything at all – popular votes, delegates, or contested convention possibility). Enormous sums of money were spent by corporate “persons” in an attempt to ground the Trump jet. One of the outcomes of the SCOTUS C U decision (unanticipated by media world) is that elections (to date) are not about “buying” but “winning”. Like a sport or game, Americans associate politics, and elections in particular, with who wins (and gets to govern) and who loses (and is forgotten). Hillary plays the game so well that even before the first primary vote was cast, or caucus held, she was projected by media world as the inevitable winner. Indeed, according to the game as played by the Democratic Party, she was ahead in delegates before any voting started, always maintaining winner status with media world no matter the outcome of any primary election. Yet Bernie continues. Media world (which includes not only news and sports reporters but gamers, entertainers, gamblers, etc.) speculates his continuance is in order to be assured inclusion and input at the convention (“a place at the table”), or to affect the party platform, maybe even to obtain a position within a fantasized future administration, etc. Analysis finds these to be way off the mark. Analysis reveals the two SCOTUS rulings to be more informative and relevant in explaining why Bernie continues. Repeatedly this blog has referenced the 47% statistic that Romney cited only 4 short years ago. 47% of Americans have no net worth (either owe more than is theirs or are one step away from having their financial equilibrium upset and falling into debt). According to Romney, these are persons who can be bought (at that time a GOP twist of C U interpretation – to say the Obama administration was “buying” their vote). Likewise these are not persons who themselves can “buy” representation (an indebted 18 – 30 year old cannot afford to “buy” an election choice the way Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson can). Here’s the sticky part, the rub that explains Sanders’ continuous effort. Is this 47%, who cannot “buy” their speech, “free” to govern itself (eligible to vote) or are they other (simply counted for the sake of representation but no more voting individuals than corporations are)? Sanders’ continuous campaign, from before its inception, has been about this very segment governing itself through voting, the electoral process. Through his continued personal engagement as contested activity, this is an actuality, not a possibility, not an “if” proposition (“if you vote for me…”) – not a game or sport (all about winning). Donnie and Hillary are all about “winning” (the bread and butter of media world). “Winning” and self-governance are not one and the same. This difference explains why Bernie continues.