Screaming In Primary Colors


For years, both the republican and democratic parties have been polarising politics: forging solidarity by consolidating voter support, by systematically dividing voters on key, hot-button issues, thereby erasing the subtle hues from the perceivable spectrum.
Yet, in 2016, we are starting to see some of those colours flood back into perspective, and for good reason: a good director knows how to frame a shot using colour, contrast, and saturation to make the details he or she wants us to see stand out. And the billionaires back in Wall Street have invested a lot of money in the best directors and producers, in what is turning out to be the biggest blockbuster election of the millennium.
Before starting his campaign, corporate lobbyists knew that Bernie Sanders was a serious threat to the establishment, as he was always “one of those politicians not like the others”—most especially because, try as they might, no amount of green in the world could change the man’s colours. Here, everyone was either red or blue, and yet his ideas were so hot, he was near-ultraviolet, so the directors were tasked with coming up with a good counterpart to capture the audience’s attention, and that’s where Donald Trump came in.
Now we suddenly have near-infrared to balance out the ultraviolet, and the directors have skillfully framed both candidates to be unstable, and unviable; drawing an otherwise lackluster Hillary Clinton into perspective, as she is suddenly perceived to be the only sane choice among them.
The truth is, if you’ve been following her campaigns (that is, for the Senate and for President in 2008, and again 2016) you’d realise that she is neither red or blue, hot or cold, but lukewarm. Her temperature changes with the climate as she tailors her skin to match the local colour; and if you were to watch her when she’s not performing in the spotlight, you’d see that her act is really just a transparent façade intended to impress voters and throw off her adversaries. Where does she really stand? Where she has always stood: silhouetted behind the desk of the Oval Office.

3 responses »

  1. So this blog is alive still.

    I am of the opinion that Trump and Bernie are going to fight it out over who comes second after Madam Clinton. And for us, Europeans (or maybe for us, Europeans who keep an eye on international politics beyond latest scandals), that is a good thing.
    Europe now has a huge problem. Not the immigration issue, that’s just a smoke screen. We now face a revived Russia and European politicians who are only interested in living well. They totally forgot the danger Russia represents and the fact that without Americans nowadays people would be speaking Russian in Paris.

    So, we are taking a keen interest in US elections. Traditionally, Republicans were known to take a harder stance in international politics, while Democrats concentrated on domestic issues. In the past 2 years however we saw a change in such an attitude. FBI is actively working with European institutions in Eastern Europe, fighting corruption. By coincidence the companies they are investigating are those with Russian connections and those are who are known as possibly anti-american (they are basically not fighting corruption but hunting russian spies).

    We would definitely want that to continue, so Hillary sounds by far the best choice. Trump is too much of a wild card. He might decide is better to leave Europe altogether and focus on convincing China to bomb itself to hurt the US economy.

    And Bernie is too much focused on social policy. He’s a new Obama, only of jewish descent. He might decide to also leave Europe to its own and dedicate his policy to building chicken farms or something.

    • I would like to see us work with Russia and China and maintain a positive relationship with all our adversaries. I do not believe Clinton is out to make peace, but any deal that will get her into/keep her in office. She is a crafty/competent tool, and will do well to serve her new masters, once she is installed in office.

      For my part, I want to see Sanders succeed, and I want a revolution to spring forth in the U.S. and spread among her allies. As it is, I will fight hard for this man, even while I still strongly believe gates of hell will prevail against us. Truly, I believe that Clinton’s presidency was guaranteed the moment she announced she would be running. Indeed, all has been bought and paid for in advance, and November’s referendum and her consequential January inauguration are merely formalities she must endure. Knowing this, why, still, do I fight? Because, in my heart, I know it is the right thing to do.

      • A noble goal. Sanders has the right CV for doing social policy work. It might not be possible, due to the fact that US is too complex of a country to apply the rules of Scandinavian countries there.
        The problem with Russia and China is that you cannot apply the rules of western diplomacy to them. Frankly speaking, western diplomats in comparison with Russian or Chinese diplomats can be compared like a monastery of virgins vs a brothel of whores. Cheating, lying, pressure and blackmail are weapons of diplomacy. Positive attitude is fine, so long as you are wary of what the other guy does.

        I guess my point is that we in Eastern Europe feel the threat of Russia looming right next door and it worries us. The fact that US has military bases here is re-assuring, but at the same time, if US policy changes and those bases are withdrawn, Russians would move in. And let’s just say that their reputation precedes them.

What are your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s