The notion of perpetually lying to constituents within the primary process is such a common occurrence within US politics, that it’s not only an accepted form of political strategy, but it’s an encouraged one by the political establishment. For those unaware, the term “general election pivot” typically refers to a campaigns ideological shift towards the center after a candidate has secured their party’s nomination. And this pivot is considered to be the normal process for any candidate to take part in after they have secured the nomination. And any individual within the party preventing such a pivot is not only heavily criticized, but considered to be putting themselves before the party. But, is this the case?If we look toward the Democratic Primary contest, a constant criticism upon Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is that he’s not allowing Hillary Clinton (the presumptive nominee) to begin pivoting toward the general election. And as the primary process has come closer to concluding, Clinton has begun to show signs of this strategic pivot. In a recent campaign stop in Northern Pennsylvania for example, after months and months of telling Democratic constituents of her tough on gun philosophy, she focused her discussion on the importance of preserving second amendment rights. A significant message shift, no? This coming after months of criticizing Sanders for being too WEAK on gun control (ignoring his D- voting rating from the NRA, which, logically, should have been worn as a badge of honor within the party). This odd shift (or outright deception) was perfectly articulated by Kyle Kulinski on his youtube channel “Secular Talk”. Invariably, as the primary process wraps up , and her competition with Senator Sanders dies down, there is no doubt that more of this back stepping is to be expected by Clinton, back stepping that the mainstream media tells us SHOULD have occurred WEEKS ago.
Let’s not sugar coat this general election pivot, and call it for what it is, outright deception. If you frequently listen to the media, supporters are told that they should appreciate the fact that Sanders has pulled Clinton to the left during the primary process, even if he loses the nomination. But what does it say about a candidate who can be pulled to articulate values which they have previously not focused on? Logically, if you don’t frequently articulate views, its only common sense that you probably do not fully embrace them. This is especially true when, in your past, you have been heard supporting the counter positions (as is the case with Hillary Clinton on many accounts). And if you suddenly begin embracing values during an election that you don’t believe in, with the intent to win a primary, what does that mean? It means you are a liar, and you are trying to deceive voters. And Sander’s supporters are supposed to appreciate this deception? They are supposed to appreciate it while simultaneously encouraging Sanders to drop out of the race sooner, as to give Clinton more time to demonstrate this deception “for the good of the party?” What ever happened to the Democratic Party acting for the good of the people?
What the mainstream media perpetually (and possibly intentionally) fails to understand about the Sanders movement is that they are not “anti-Clinton”, they are anti-corruption. They take no satisfaction in pulling Hillary Clinton to the left, because the very idea of a candidate changing their position to get elected, in their view, is exactly the kind of political corruption that has led the United States into to having one of the most unrepresentative government among many of the major industrialized nations across the globe. Such corruption is the reason that, according to a Princeton University Study on the degree to which the US government represents the people, “preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”.Sanders supporters are angry that no one else appears to understand how corrupt an action such as a “general election pivot” really seems to be, or how corrupt it appears when a candidate sways away from their normal views simply to win a primary. These individuals support Senator Sanders specifically BECAUSE they know he won’t change his message if he secured the nomination. And I can’t say any logical person should disagree. Would you allow such deception from: an employee; a best friend; a business partner; or even your children? Most likely not. Then why do we grant a pass for those running the very structure of our society? Shouldn’t this be a position in which scrutiny is enhanced, not lessened?
At the end of the day, political preferences will always vary among individuals, and indeed each individual will invariably think his/her views are the only correct views. But a common disagreement on policy is not what has been occurring within the American political system. What has been occurring is the general acceptance of underhanded, immoral, and sometimes downright illegal actions by politicians and the political establishment. This acceptance has grown to such a degree, that when a candidate comes out AGAINST those actions, and prides himself on running a campaign without such tactics, he is heavily criticized as being unrealistic, and naïve by both the establishment and the common people. Such a reflection of reality is something that is not up for debate, nor is an opinion, it is fact. And the longer we pretend it does not exist, the longer we will allow our “republic” to lack any meaningful reflection of the people’s true will.