Inspite of my total disdain for Trump he’s one hundred percent correct in saying the political system in this country is broken, and like Trump I won’t make any effort to defend it.
As broken and corrupt as the conservative stance on climate change, the minimum wage, and regulations that seek to serve the common good of the people and the environment.
Trump’s statement is predicated on self interest, not the common good – if his perception were that it facilitated his ascent he would be defending the system rather than attacking it.
And so I would ask New Yorkers if this is representative of “New York values”? If Trump is representative ?
I’m not a city person, I have no desire to live in NYC or any city for that matter, but I don’t prejudge people by where they reside, nor by accent, or ethnicity.
Cities have problems, the bigger they are the bigger the problems are generally speaking – these problems in turn are influenced by national problems.
And that’s what people should be focusing on, not just local and state, but national issues as well.
States rights – a good thing and a bad thing, but the rights of a state seldom trump those of the government if there is a conflict of interest and agenda, and in more than few instances shouldn’t.
Corruption and manipulation in the nominating/ election process are merely the tip of the iceberg, a symptom of a deeper more serious systemic condition.
It isn’t something new, what is new is the open and brazen manner in which it goes about it’s business from Citizens United to super pacs and influence peddling.
Each of which if asked as a individual question people would denounce, yet often are willing to overlook when it comes to their candidate of choice regardless of party affiliation.
And that may be the biggest problem of all, an unfettered allegiance based not on the realities, not on the record, nor apparently on character and integrity.
I don’t believe there’s a better time than now for people to test to system, to assert themselves and demand that a “representative” government represent the common good of one and all rather than a select few.
Not an easy task but it won’t get any easier, and that’s something everyone should be thinking about, unless inspite of their personal rhetoric they’re satisfied with the status quo.
Familiarity can breed a certain comfort, but it can also breed contempt – what has become familiar has also become contemptible, and the question is is it reflective of New York or the nations values? I don’t believe it is.
Politics and elections are very much an existential matter that affords little if any insulation for anyone other than the elite.
Being existential people are obliged to examine and consider the impact of policies and candidates, what the ramifications are or will be, what are the potential benefits or downside?
That doesn’t seem burdensome to me as we all examine and make determinations in the day to day.
Sometimes as individuals we may forgo the process and shoot from the hip so to speak allowing our decisions to be clouded by emotions, desires, or the way we want something to be.
That’s a slippery slope in our personal lives but even more so when voting to determine the path of a nation.
A part of the pervasive corruption that exists in campaigning and elections is money, rather than the media being obliged to provide open access as a public service the cost of campaigns has skyrocketed primarily due to purchasing air time.
That cost has led to the undue influence of corporate influence via “donations” and individuals like the Kochs and Soros.
The mea culpa has been public donations aren’t sufficient – perhaps this lack of sufficiency can be attributed to establishment candidates who fail to truly resonate, but the excuse fails in light of a candidate like Bernie Sanders who has no super pac, nor corporate donors seeking influence.
Campaign reform begins with dismantling Citizens United and should evolve into a proactive approach to “soft money” with strictly enforced prohibitions.
If a candidate wrote a thesis in college, made a speech, or was interviewed by the school paper you can be sure it would become open to scrutiny, how then is that a candidate who gives paid speeches to corporate donors is somehow immune from the same scrutiny?
To summarize when it comes to Trump I think it obvious which way the wind is blowing, I think it equally obvious with Clinton as well.