Aren't there viable alternatives to Hillary?
by populistamerica, Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:25:27 AM EST
Read More Related Commentary Here:
I just learned today that Elliot Spitzer; the extremely popular New York State Attorney General, who has vigorously prosecuted the misdeeds of white collar, corporate criminals, even in scenarios where the Federal Government was supposed to be regulating the practices of the corporate elites, belonging to the various Wall Street finance industries, to which Spitzer has limited himself until now. This great populist politician's next target is another appealing subject of legal interdiction for those of us who care to advocate the interests of the ordinary citizen, as opposed to the interests of members of the corporate elite. Elliot Spitzer, as is typical of his prosecutorial judgment, has decided to fight for the populace, members of which who have been, ironically enough, the recent recipients of this corporate industry's unsavory, vindictive practices.
I am referring to the music industry and the lawsuits it has brought against vulnerable members of the populace, such as college kids, the parents of adolescent children who share music on the Web, and anybody else that the greed mongers - who are the members of this corporate, cronyist, elitist network; just another instance of the over-privileged in American society - have decided to crucify, and it is always the weak in society who get nail to the cross, in order to symbolically reaffirm their positions of authority with respect to the distribution of artwork throughout the population.
Spitzer has turned the tables, and he is now contemplating going after the music industry for its price gauging practices, which, I think, at least, are rather transparent; especially since every online vendor seems to have an identical pricing scheme. I cannot imagine an easier target to go after than the music industry for a politician who wants to acquire populist appeal. This is the kind of People's politician that the Democrats need, who makes both the right political moves, in an ethical sense, as well as the most advantageous political calculations, according to his posturing in order for him to displace the next politician, who is growing roots in his or her position of power and who is almost invariably an extension of the power elite in American society.
Best of all, from a strategic perspective, he does it without necessarily appearing as if he using political considerations to determine what is most advantageous to his career.
Eliot Spitzer is astronomically more savvy a politician than Hillary Clinton, for whom I would have great reticence voting, taking into account her wobbly stance on issues of social significance, such as free speech. This most salient of her idiotic public positions - other, of course, than her unwavering support for the ongoing American colonialist defeat in the Middle-east - was her proposal for limiting the distribution of Grand Theft Auto to segments of the population, as if she is the proper adjudicator for determining what forms of art and entertainment are appropriate for the People's consumption. She was obviously struggling, at that time, at least - and she probably still is now, if, of course, her public relations consultants still think it is politically in her interest to do so - to make herself appear as though she is supporting the interests of middle-class parents by addressing - or, put more accurately, creating - their concerns regarding the type of media to which their children are exposed. I realize that some might think that this is in the populations best interest to censor violent representations of fictional realities. However, acts that are corrosive of the Bill of Rights inevitably result in conditions that enable the powerful to extend their domination by censoring forms of media, which might to not conform to their own ideologies or the ideologies that they want the rest of us to possess. Hillary Clinton ended up alienating much of the cultural libertarian, leftist base, which values civil rights - in this case, the freedom of speech - more than an insincere politician, who is endeavoring to present herself, not with respect to her real convictions - assuming that she actually has any - but in a manner that reflects the triangulation calculations of PR consultants.
We as populists need to begin to realize who our real friends are in the struggle to enact a political agenda that is oriented towards the advancement of the interests of the common man and woman. We need to see through the purely politically motivated pretenses of politicians who endorse public policies, such as Hillary Clinton, (not to mention her partner in power acquisitions, Bill Clinton), so we can contribute our support towards individuals who have taken substantive stances supporting the interest of the ordinary citizen rather than the vested interests of the political and socially powerful.
I strongly believe that Elliot Spitzer is an authentic populist, who cares at least as much about his real constituency - the People - as he does about his own advancement regarding his political carrier. The Democrats, once again, are in real trouble if they attempt to select whom they expect to be the best politician for the purposes of succeeding in an election, in contrast to supporting someone, who will only advance his or her political aspirations if it involves authentically working for the conditions of the average man and woman. Individuals, such as myself, would surely cast a vote for a John McCain if our only viable recourse was to vote for the life and career partner of the former President, Slick Willy.
Written by Russell Cole, who welcomes your personal feedback. (email - firstname.lastname@example.org) Russell is a featured columnist at www.populistamerica.com, and is also the coordinator for the Populist Party's Midwest Alliance.