You might be living in a plutocracy if...
...your fellow citizens would prefer a presidential candidate (Hillary Clinton) who is backed by the corrupt financial institutions that destroyed the American economy, over a candidate (Elizabeth Warren) who has consistently fought for the middle-class and poor .
Here are two recent amazing headlines:
"Study: Americans Still Angry With Big Banks," Reuters, February 24, 2014.
"Vast Majority Of Democrats Want Hillary Clinton To Run In 2016: Poll," Huffington Post, February 26, 2014, showing that far more Democrats support Hillary Clinton running for president, than support Elizabeth Warren running for president.
If these polls are accurate reflections of reality, then they indicate that American voters are, collectively, either:
(a) Completely uninformed;
(b) Have a need for a royal bloodline in the White House (how many Bush and Clinton presidencies do we need?);
(c) Masochists ("A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences." Free Dictionary); or
(d) Suffering from Stockholm Syndrome ("a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors..." Wikipedia)
Here is the basic problem/question: If Americans are angry at the big banks, than why are they more supportive of a presidential candidate that is backed by the big banks (Hillary Clinton) and less supportive of a candidate who has aggressively fought the big banks (Elizabeth Warren)?
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Hillary Clinton's major financial donors have included Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Lehman Brothers--a who's who on the list of organizations involved in the financial wrongdoings that brought down the American economy and destroyed the livelihood of millions of Americans.
Here are two headlines that go together in a fun way:
"Goldman Sachs Will Settle Fraud Case for $550 Million"
"Hillary Clinton's Big Paydays From Goldman Sachs"
Now, let's look at some of Elizabeth Warren's major financial donors: Moveon.org (a group dedicated to equal access to government for all income groups), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the League of Conservation Voters (a pro-environment group).
Here are two more interesting headlines:
"Elizabeth Warren challenges Obama to break up 'too-big-to-fail' Wall St banks"
"Wall Street’s nightmare: President Elizabeth Warren"
If there's anything more frightening than a plutocracy, it's voters who are so oblivious to reality that they simply cannot stop themselves from supporting that plutocracy (thus dragging the rest of us along for a perpetual ride on the Corporate Crime Crazy Train). A Hillary Clinton presidency would be the same as a George Bush or Barack Obama presidency--Polices and actions that favor the super-wealthy, but mostly offer lip-service to everyone else. (Consider President Obama's recent Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) efforts. He has welcomed corporations to work with him, but excluded the public. See, e.g., "Obama Seeks Trade Deals Sought by Biggest U.S. Companies" and "Obama Admin’s TPP Trade Officials Received Hefty Bonuses From Big Banks").