Ben Emery: Bernie Sanders administration would be revolutionary | TheUnion.com

Ben Emery: Bernie Sanders administration would be revolutionary

Other Voices
Ben Emery

For 2020 there is a most unlikely revolutionary candidate running for President of the United States of America.

This is a political revolutionary candidate. Bernie Sanders is trying to revolutionize from within the Democratic Party despite being the longest independent federal office holder in U.S. history. The Sanders revolution isn’t about health care for all, canceling out student debt and taxing the uber wealthy more; Sanders’ revolution is that of turning a major corrupt and captured political party upside down in our manufactured two-party system.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign is showing everyone in the nation that special interest large investors aren’t needed. His campaigns are funded by working class and poor people, which became part of his platform and headlines in 2016 of being on average of $27 per donation. A Washington Post article in April 2016 titled “Bernie Sanders Keeps saying his average donation is $27, but his own numbers contradict that.” An obvious attempt to challenging the campaign’s trustworthiness. It turns out when calculated in a different way, his average donation could have been either $29.14 or $28.88, “which is more than 27” said author Phillip Bump.

By contrast according to an article published by The Intercept in February 2016 a single Hillary Clinton investor, George Soros, donated to one Super Pac that was equivalent to 220,000 of Bernie’s donors. This is leaving out the $100 million-plus the Clintons have amassed since President Clinton left the office that is a definite conflict of interest. One example is the speeches Hillary Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs for hundreds of thousands of dollars; the transcripts were kept secret.

… a Sanders administration would be filled with watchdogs and those who want to keep industry in check.

Later, we found by DNC chair Donna Brazile publication called “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-Ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House,” how the Clinton campaign extorted control of the Democratic National Committee to give Hillary Clinton every advantage possible and would explain how so many super delegates had already openly pledged their support months before the first Democratic Party presidential debate.

The Democratic Party relies on the special interests and large investors as much as the Republican Party. The people of the USA are left without representation within our federal government due to this corruption.

Eric Holder held a lucrative position at the corporate law firm of Covington & Burling. The year before becoming the top law enforcement officer in the USA federal government as attorney general, Holder made a meager $2.5 million according to a must-read Rolling Stone article, “Eric Holder, Wall Street Double Agent, Comes in From the Cold” by Matt Tiabbi.

Let’s just stick to the obvious, a corporate lawyer who specializes in the financial sector during the biggest financial crisis in 80 years is now in charge of holding accountable the very industry that has made him a millionaire. Another example of a conflict of interest. To make matters worse, a major theme in Tiabbi’s article was that Covington & Burling held the office or position Holder has within the firm open while he was attorney general. Let that sink in.

Tom Vilsak was President Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture and a top candidate to be Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate in 2016. Here is an excerpt from a 2016 Mother Jones article:

“As Iowa governor, Vilsack endeared himself to the state’s ag interests. Back in 2001, the Biotechnology Industry Organization — a trade group representing seed/agrichemical players like Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, Bayer, and Syngenta — named him “Governor of the Year” for his “support of the industry’s economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research.” He also chaired the Governors Ethanol Coalition and the Governors Biotechnology Partnership.”

The point of his op-ed is to open a different perspective of how a Bernie Sanders administration would be revolutionary. It isn’t about the platform of the Sanders campaign. Laws are passed by the legislative branch, not the White House.

Instead of having advocates of industry insiders as advisors and heading U.S. Federal Cabinet and Regulatory Agencies that set the agenda towards protecting the interests of industry, a Sanders administration would be filled with watchdogs and those who want to keep industry in check. By this one act of a President Sanders administration, the Democratic Party would be totally overhauled, thus the entire federal government regulatory agencies would become representatives of the people instead of the interests of industry.

Bernie Sanders doesn’t owe his political career to the Democratic Party or the DNC, therefore his campaign would control who the advisors, cabinet heads, and chairs of regulatory agencies will be.

Ben Emery lives in Nevada City.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.