Our Failing Institution: Hillary Clinton and the Downward Spiral

Currently, our system of democracy is plagued by three compounding factors: a lack of participation (or complete apathy) from the voting populace, rhetoric taking precedence over action, and the emphasis on wealth and personal connections on the part of the candidates. We can see in our own primaries that these factors are compounding to push candidates through, whilst leaving those that might lack these “advantages” in the dust. Hillary Clinton, the one of the front runners of the Democratic party, is the earthly incarnation of this trifecta of disaster, and will spell the end of the hopes of a Democrat in the White House.

The Well-Connected Empress

Her campaign is that of a dynasty, much like the Bush's, and has as primary support her many connections within the political aristocracy. There is no greater evidence attesting to this than the Democratic party's use (and abuse, in my opinion) of the super delegates within their party's voting system. For those that don't know, the Democrats (as well as the Republicans) choose their nominee for the presidential race by appointing delegates in proportion to the vote of each state. With some states, because of the number of delegates, one candidate may finish ahead of another but still receive the same number of delegates.

This is not the point of concern, however. What should cause anger and fear is the way that the "Democratic" party counts their delegates. Since 1982, the Democrats have implemented a system of “super delegates.” These super delegates are made up completely of all Democratic party leaders, elected members of congress, and governors, but they get the vote of one delegate when it comes final decision time. What does this mean? It means that between 20 and 40 percent of the vote for the Democratic nominee comes directly from party leaders and not the people, and they have free reign over whom they endow their gift of vote. I say “gift” because these people are already allocating themselves for the candidates. In fact, senator Clinton, upon coming out of New Hampshire, had more delegates swinging for her than Obama, at about 187 for Clinton and 89 for Obama, including, of course, pre-pledged super delegates.

The Talking-Points Facade

Should you be fearful? Absolutely. Clinton is a queen of rhetoric, explaining how people who think that they are voting for an anti-war, pro-universal health care, anti-unitary-executive, and possibly pro-impeachment/criminal inquiry candidate, when her record clearly shows that she is quite the opposite. My favorite quote from her (that nobody seems to know she made) is:

I'm a strong believer in executive authority. I wish that, when my husband was President, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority.

Like the Hydra, when one cuts a head off of her public image, she manages to spout out enough bullshit that she has created the rhetorical equivalent of two new ones. She will do what she can to ride the political tide to power, then continue on her merry way doing (and promoting) exactly what has led our country into the national, as well as international, debacle that it is currently stewing in.

What seems worse, however, is that she is the single candidate that will land the Republicans the most votes. She has, literally, been in the public spotlight for too long to stand up reliably against the Republican party. As it is, she has galvanized the nation, and most people have a very strong feeling towards her, either favorable or not so much. What is interesting to the statistician is that, as a result of this, she is the one candidate most likely to lose to the Republican candidate nominated, regardless of who it is. Many people believe that it is “impossible,” especially after Bush II, for a Republican to pull a victory out of this election. The Republican party, however, is apt at rhetoric and mud-slinging, just by looking at the way they act during their own debates. If Clinton were to be chosen by her party, as it seems that she will be, then the likelihood of another Republican candidate, let alone the extension of the current wars (and possibly new wars), peaks at nearly certain.

The Apathetic Activist

Knowing all that is publicly available about her, how could someone labeling themselves as "Progressive" consider her as a proper candidate? She is the most conservative of all the candidates, at least by the current definition of the word (as opposed to the old, libertarian definition that Ron Paul embodies), and is the most deceptive. She is truly politician incarnate, Machiavellian to the core. Why would any rational being vote for her?

Simply put, they are too apathetic and/or ideologically stupefied to even bother with researching what kind of person she, nor any other candidate, for that matter, is. Far too many people, as is, don't pay attention to politics in the first place. Many hate Bush (albeit, the man deserves it) simply because it has become “fashionable” to distaste the man. Much like the situation with Bush, many people vote for Hillary on trivial factors alone, and not on policy or ideology.

One could blame this general voter incompetence on the "big media” (and no doubt, they shoulder a portion of the burden of blame). However, as the internet has shown us, it has become easier and easier to look up “dirt” on a person. Hell, recent history has bestowed the gift upon the word “Google” of verb usage in our vernacular. All in all, it only took me about 30 minutes to find all the information I used in this essay alone. The internet has become a powerful superhighway of information, and it is inexcusable for anyone to be misinformed on the major political happenings of our world. Either the people who are voting for Clinton are too pig-ignorant to do proper research on candidates, are too lazy to do so, or are too poor and/or busy to afford the time to look her up (in which case, the major media organizations are completely to blame for not performing their proper job).

The only other group of voters that are pro-Clinton are the ones that have her in their pockets.