Pundits and ordinary voters have universally bemoaned the coarsening of our elections, particularly due to Donald Trump’s outrageous behavior throughout the campaign. But the first debate between Trump and Clinton drew record numbers of viewers. Why? Because Trump is so exciting.
The Thrilla at Hofstra
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
7 Comments. Leave new
It’s a good thing for most of us when the duopoly delegitimizes itself. We should not allow the duopoly to make of us a society not allowed to exist for its own sake, but to exist only as a foundation and a scaffolding for a select class of beings we know as the 1%.
Good things could happen if people would look away from the corporate media spectacle and focus instead on issues relevant to the 99% rather than those of the the privileged 1%.
I don’t trust the corporate media to control the news of the corporate candidates any more than I trust police to control police crime videos. Self dealers all.
Vote third party.
Dethrone the economic royalists of the duopoly.
^ What he said! (Jill Stein for me!) 🙂
Speaking of Ms Stein, mein verehrter Lehrer – and other interessed – have you seen her «response to the thrilla at Hofstra» ?…
Henri
Glen ~
The duopoly rules all. Why? Because (ever since the “Federal” Reserve coup) it is managed by the (autocratically instituted) Bankster-class. If a third-party ever covertly bypassed the corporate-media vote-counters and somehow got enough ballot recognition to actually participate in a debate, what makes you think that it would be allowed to even marginally remain “independent?” In America, third-parties are only allowed to exist as vote-count spoilers.
Even if Jill Stein ain’t deep-cover, she’s still just a neutered symbol of what will never be allowed, that being an opinion not parroting the duopoly meme.
DanD
The founders had high hopes for the executive branch as a counter to the king. But over the years, the president and the British Royalty have converged. Full of pomp and circumstance; noise and fury; spectacle and scandal – but ultimately irrelevant.
«The founders had high hopes for the executive branch as a counter to the king.» My impression, CrazyH, was that the framers of the US Constitution rather envisaged the executive branch as a danger to be countered by the Congress, to which most of the powers of state – among them the power to declare war – were given. Remember that the preceding Articles of Confederation didn’t provide for an executive at all, the Congress was the only federal organ….
Alas, with the US Congress abdicating from its duties – while the country has engaged in almost continual warfare these last seven decades, the Congress has not declared war since 5 June 1942 – the US presidency has become a sort of serial kingship, in which the president has far more power than any king in a modern constitutional monarchy….
So can it go….
Henri
My understanding is that the congress has been trying to to dilute the president’s power over the years (think “term limits”). Flaps over executive orders go back to Lincoln’s day at least.
But that wasn’t my point, anyway – consider it poetic license if it bothers you.