My online response to the above linked-to article follows:
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Robert Koehler follows:
=========== ooo =
There was more than one loser in the big debate, but that’s no surprise. I hardly expected any issues of substance to get serious air time, let alone intelligent commentary, in Monday’s 90-minute presidential race spectacle, but something — something — matters here enormously. Maybe it’s nothing more than a question: Why, in this self-aggrandizing democracy, do the candidates for the highest office of the land fail so blatantly at addressing the issues most crucial to our future?
Or maybe more to the point: Why does our vaunted fourth estate fail to demand this of them, or even bother to hold these issues up in plain public view? Why does it focus, instead, on who “won,” and in the process reduce the presidential race to the significance of a mud-wrestling contest?
= ooo ===========
============ == =
Robert Koehler is absolutely right about all of this.
“What I realized, as I listened to him, was that it isn’t the simple, dumb policy proposals that inspire his followers but the stomp and clomp of every single word he utters.” What strikes about this very correct observation is the thought that you can have a figure on the Left who speaks in a similar style. Of course, That leftwing figure needs to be someone. He (or…) needs to be up there in stature and power with presidential contenders like Clinton and Trump. What to make of it? Is the style – every word like a grenade – a symptom of ignorance and malice? Or can one be informed and/or educated and caring ‘and’ possessed of a Trump style of speaking to audiences? I think a lot of oomph is missing from much alt media commentary precisely because it’s a bit fake. Punches are pulled by journos who are actually doing okay, economically, within the gangster corporatocracy they critique for a paycheque. How far will they go in their fight for justice etc?
The leftwing version of a thunderous, fascist Trump-like character would be one who could, unlike a Donald Trump, mix his grenade-like language with facts and stats. That would be the difference. He would sound much like Bernie Sanders but would be genuine and would walk his (or…) talk. Berndie Sanders was only ever outside the Democratic Party establishment ‘officially’, as others have noted.
= == ============
It’s surely fitting that the “vaunted fourth estate” focusses solely on who won in the sorry first debate between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, given that their world is animated by a mafia-inspired paradigm I call ‘riches for the strongest’. That’s a godless game that only those who have self-modified can get behind. Only those who believe in inequality (and deception that hides that fact) embrace that paradigm wholeheartedly. Even victims of the neoliberal capitalism that stems from that paradigm’s influence on people who come to rule the world are busy trying to win in the rigged game, rather than caring enough to know that humanity needs a different game altogether.
As for the view (that was probably more widespread than it is now) that Bernie is outside the establishment, See Paul Street’s CounterPunch article titled “Ruling Class Games And Qualifications: On And Beyond The Bernie-Hillary Spat.”