The Establishment Limits

There is nothing wrong with your TV screen. Do not attempt to change the channel.

We are controlling the narrative. Whatever station you choose will tell you the same thing: get back in line. Or else. Do not move beyond the Establishment Limits.

We control who you imagine is electable. Nevermind if he stands for nothing and appears to understand even less. Nevermind if, when his face fills your screen, he only looks good because we’ve blurred everything you thought you knew.

You don’t need crystal clarity. You just need to participate in exactly the way we tell you to.

You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Establishment Limits.

(With apologies to The Outer Limits)

- Anita Bartholomew

Bernie Sanders Threatens Government Of, By, and For the Moneyed Class— Hence the Establishment Freak-Out.

If you read the latest Must-Stop-Sanders article in The New York Times, you’d be tempted to believe that all those donors and establishment politicians quoted are most concerned that Bernie Sanders might not just lose the presidency, but also threaten Democratic party gains in other offices.    

Others in the party view Mr. Sanders as such an existential threat that they see stopping him from winning the nomination as less risky than a public convention fight.  

But what if we’re reading this wrong? What if he’s an “existential threat” to the people in power, not because he might lose, but, because he might win? Why is the party establishment willing to risk alienating Bernie’s voters—again—knowing that that might guarantee another four years of Trump?  

Simple. Bernie wants to end government-by-bribe.

That’s the secret behind the freak-out. Not the potential loss of healthcare for those who need it if the Democratic nominee fails to get elected. Not the continued poisoning of air we breathe and the water we drink, not the destruction of public lands for profit, or the separating of immigrant families into cages, or that the laws will continue to be flouted. Money trickles down from billionaires and corporations into SuperPACs and party accounts, enriches party leaders, and gives them personal power that rivals White House power. And Sanders wants that to end.

Money determines whether a congressional rep gets desirable committee assignments that garner more power…and more money. Money awaits the losers, too, if only they play the game.

When it appears that someone whose values aren’t immediately translatable into cash equivalents might take control, threatening the whole corrupt engine, it inspires panic.  

So, sure, it’s more important to those Democrats who thrive in the current system to beat Sanders than to beat Trump.

Congresswoman Veronica Escobar of Texas was singled out in the above-mentioned New York Times article, saying that even if Bernie came to the convention with 40 percent of delegates, while the other six candidates split the balance among them it “…wouldn’t be enough to convince her to vote for him on the second ballot.”

The article neglected to note that Rep. Escobar was sent on an all-expenses paid trip to Paris, Rome, and Brussels last November by Third Way Foundation. PR Watch has this to say about the rabidly anti-Bernie corporatist group:

Several corporate donors to Third Way are or have been members of the GOP-aligned American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate bill mill that links lobbyists with state lawmakers. Amgen, Baxter Healthcare, CVS Caremark, DuPont, and trade groups the Consumer Technology Association and NCTA - The Internet and Television Association are members.

Most imagine the mantra “Vote Blue, No Natter Who,” will keep voters in line.

But if the superdelegates deny the nomination to the people’s choice, how many individual voters will feel cheated? Their vote didn’t count in the primary; why bother in the general?   

Meanwhile, among the richest and most powerful, there appears to be a hankering for a brokered convention to end in Bloomberg’s nomination. In fact, Bloomberg appears to be counting on that. He has already spent more than Clinton and Trump combined did in 2016. For that, he’s managed, as of today, about 16 percent support. And roughly the same number of voters said they would not vote for Bloomberg if he were the nominee as have said they would not vote for Sanders.

So, Bloomberg’s “Vote Blue No Matter Who” support is the weakest when you consider the limited 1^st choice support his money has bought to date. But establishment politicians who make up the bulk of super-delegates know he’ll share the wealth. As he reminded us all in the last debate, he bought, er, got about 21 House seats with his money in 2018.

Granted, he’d lose to Trump. But…money! Everyone wins!

Except those of us who want a fairer system, clean air and water, and justice and compassion for the most vulnerable. 

- Anita Bartholomew