Differences and unity in the political landscape In this general election year, many of extraordinary things have happened. Being a participant in the electoral politics, I would offer my own opinions based upon observations and rethinking on the political landscape. The differences between the two major parties and the conflicts of interest between their electorate have been overly emphasized by the establishments of both parties to such a detestable extent that Republicans appear as enemies of the Democrats and vice versa. One of the obvious rational behind this misguidedness is to maintain their respective leadership in Congress and elsewhere. The electorate should avoid this trap. They are one and united as the people's whole and no one should have the power to break up their unity. It is capital that wants to divide people into as many camps as possible. People should resist its divide-and-conquer scheme.
There are important differences, to be sure, between groups in term of haves and have-nots, owners and hired-hands, capital and labor power, ruling class and the ruled and capital lords and their subjects. All these cannot be resolved within the existing system that respects privileges of capital more so than labor, the ruling class than the ruled, etc. with no serious processes to correct wrong-doings by means of political evolution. The pro-Donald-Trump electorate should not be considered as heretics by the pro-Bernie-Sanders electorate, and vice versa. They are both electorate with the important forward-looking view of anti-establishment, and their differences are minor and superficial when compared to differences of long-term and fundamental interests among group and class. The political struggle is between anti- and pro-establishment, which implicitly means between anti-capital and pro-capital or between revolutionary changes and status quo. Whether Donald Trump calls Bernie Sanders a communist or the latter called him a mogul or demagogue, or others call him a fascist or a misogynist, the fact remains the same - they both are in and of the same camp of anti-establishment and supported by working class whites. The struggle between anti- and pro-establishment lies in the heart of the current political struggle, wherein neither pomposity nor going to extremes mean anything significant. This explains why both Chris Christie and Ben Carson, two former rivals of Trump, endorsed him after all. Electorate have been imbued with the idea of the establishment that status quo is the way to go. They tend to vote for establishment candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marko Rubio and John Kasich just as in the past for Barack Obama. These voters' political viewpoints are conservative (not to be confused with those of the Tea Party or the Koch brothers) in the sense of being entrenched within tradition and hewed to casting any positive changes aside even though the country is on the ropes, thanks to the rich, powerful and influential. It seems to me that they think once the establishment candidate of their choice gets the executive power, all will be well. Both optimism and worry without basis are inane, and at the present, harmful because revolution whether they know or not has become the trend of events that the establishment vows to undermine. The Democrats are less vocal and vociferous in their displeasures over the policies and problems they face daily than the Republicans. But their resentments against the latter nonetheless do not recede in importance anytime soon. In actualities, the gridlock brought about by the two sides is never system-survival-relevant, as both sides are doing capital's bidding. Their differences are more tactic than strategic toward control, cajolement and co-optation of the working masses that must get to the root of the so-called party differences. The political landscape is widely open to anyone who cares to make a difference in the electoral politics. The old-fashioned party affiliation, loyalty and order of the restive electorate are no longer considered as necessary for participation in the electoral politics. Cross-voting becomes widespread. Loyalty is changed to specific claims and pledges from blind partisanship. Party panjandrums can no longer call the shots. The political revolution that Bernie Sanders called for and defined as in-system may sound scary to the uninitiated, but then it is considered to be far from adequate to the revolution-minded. His revolution clarion once heard by hundreds of millions of people in this country and, indeed, in the developed world, will aid them in propelling an uninterrupted revolution by, of, and for the people. Under such an extraordinary situation, there will be no holy taboo or conventional wisdom that will be beyond examination and criticism. Let the apologists for the establishment be aware that they will no longer be lurking slyly in the background. Everything under the Sun to which the defined revolution pays attention will have to be reasoned and criticized. Is this revolution a mocked one? Definitely it is not. Is it limited to bourgeois rebellion against the establishment that neo-liberal political economy cultivated? Yes. Mark ____________________________ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
