Post#120 » by I_Like_Dirt » Thu Nov 3, 2016 3:40 pm
The line of thinking, gtn, would go beyond Clinton. It would see Clinton as more of a symptom than anything, too, just like Trump. It's not just Clinton, but it's Romney, Rubio, Gore, and Bush/Cheney, and Obama (although I think he's a but different but many who aspire to vote for Trump would almost assuredly disagree), and many other politicians on both sides of the floor. When you feel the system is rigged so that candidates like Clinton keep getting put forward and things are getting worse in that respect, not better, more emboldened with policies that help the few enrich themselves, then eventually you're going to go full on destroy-the-establishment, in some odd variation of Ron Paul which may not resemble Ron Paul at all.
Heck, the sentiment is felt within both parties, too, just moreso within the Republican Party at present. But I'm amazed, though not surprised, at just how quickly the Dems have started to act as though Bernie didn't exist, because Bernie is very much their own Trump - like Trump, he's been yelling a lot of the same stuff (although less offensive stuff) for decades now and nobody really paid too much attention to him for a long time.
That economist article is basically a fancy way of saying "too big to fail," much as has been said about many banks or automakers or any other big businesses that by rights should have failed. It's the default armor of the establishment - if anyone tries to tamper with our setup we're going to make things way worse for everyone else than they'll be for us. And in a lot of cases it's true, but it's also a situation where the options to actually change course for the better become less likely by the day until one day things change dramatically and abruptly. Personally, I don't even think a Trump presidency would rattle the establishment the way they're worried it would - it would just be a message about populism and elections that they'd rather not hear.
Bucket! Bucket!
