How Long Must We Pay the Price for Ideologues?
28 Nov 2017
Having gone silent in disgust watching the deflections of a Hillary-bashing media, I now raise my head to see a platform still offered to the reckless, rich Susan Sarandon to continue her anti-Hillary screeds. Pundits and anchors denying culpability for Clinton’s election “loss” even while egging on misogyny and smear against her from factions left and right, foreign and domestic, are supposed to be better than this. They purport to be journalists. Yet they push obsessive tripe to gain attention. So does Sarandon, whose fathomless views expose the dangerous influence of privileged unicorn seekers who make unattainable perfection the enemy of attainable good, urging voters who can ill afford it to follow her off a cliff. Is it any wonder she and big media seek each other out?
Now, instead of working to enact the policies of a very competent Hillary (while holding her feet to the fire) and moving forward from the place Obama left us, we must daily fight for the Republic against a GOP so hell bent on paying off their rich donors, they don’t care who they sacrifice. CHIP, the ACA, Net Neutrality, tax breaks for the poor and middle class, the CFPB and much more are all on the chopping block – and that’s just this week.
That’s what the perfectionism and misinformation of the Bernie or Busters got us.
Our founding fathers designed America to make incremental progress for our safety, lest demagogues like the one now in office dismantle in months what took hundreds of years to achieve. The cluelessness of Sarandon and the Bernie or Bust/Jill Stein ilk bring into sharp relief how harmful it is for voters to buy populist ideology pushed by those with no achievement to back up their ranting.
Perhaps those with a public profile who continue to bash Hillary Clinton do so in an effort to distract from the truth shared in her #1 bestseller What Happened. Her refusal to hide out in the woods means their noses get rubbed in how wrong they were about her, her supporters, record and policy prescriptions. Too ashamed to admit they did no homework but believed and broadcast the worst right-wing conspiracy hogwash imaginable, they’d rather cover their own asses than think about protecting ours.
But what can we expect when Forbes puts forth an article that hiring Seth Meyers to host the Golden Globes is hiring the “feminist we need to do the job”? Seth Meyers is a feminist? I understood Meyers to be part of the “Hillary STFU” crowd even as he continued to defend Bernie, who by the way is just now “boning up” on foreign policy, something that Presidents spend 50% of their time working on.
It never ceases to amaze that we still have an inclination to protect the man (Bernie Sanders) from any sort of factual take-down but have no problem subjecting the woman (Hillary Clinton) to the worst double standard, demanding perfection from the coloratura while “applauding the tenor for clearing his throat“.
Once and for all, Bernie Sanders was not prepared to be President. He was a one-trick pony who blamed everything on income inequality, with no competent solution to fix the same. He broke the promise he made on national television by staying in the race too long (after losing by hundreds of pledged delegates and nearly 4 million votes). He was the “spoiler” he vowed not to be, hid away and wrote a memoir after the primaries, sucked lemons at the Democratic Convention and all too late, campaigned halfheartedly for the victor after spending month smearing her character and misrepresenting her record. Does it not occur that “my way or the highway” Bernie did it to keep himself relevant? Sadly, he remains a selfish, egotistical man who still refuses to join the Party he purports to wish to lead – one he can’t seem to stop bashing. How long will people protect him and continue to buy into his behavior?
For any of this to change, if it ever will, we need to ask ourselves why we are willing to believe crackpot theories about a woman but defend a man past all reason.
By the way, a man who ignores intersectionality, who shows no inclination to center women or PoC is no feminist.
And how can we honor a publication that puts forth the idea that a man is the feminist we need to speak for us instead of hiring a capable woman when there are so many out there able to do the job? Anyone pushing this line has a vested interest in keeping women satisfied with crumbs at the table.
Are you going to buy it?
Of course there are male feminists and I applaud them – but men have an enormous forum everywhere, every single day. They must also have the sense to make enough room for a woman to speak for herself and moreover, to stand up and lead.
Anyone pushing this “Hillary would have been worse than Trump” garbage or continuing to protect Bernie has a vested interest in making you buy by revisionist history instead of doing your own research and sharing the truth.
Are you going to buy it?
Anyone telling you not to complain about Sanders or Meyers or Sarandon in the name of “unity”, so as not to alienate an “ally,” is also selling you a bill of goods. A genuine ally would never have a problem with the truth.
The practice of smearing Hillary Clinton, a powerful woman, will have a negative carry forward on any woman who dares to step up and do what she did. Not calling out the culprits who helped thwart her election means they or their followers will use an idealistic but ultimately empty ideology to do the same to a Kamala Harris the next time around.
Are you going to buy it?