See her article here. Combating climate change
"requires a willingness to go head-to-head with the two most powerful
industries on the planet—fossil-fuel companies and the banks that
finance them. Hillary Clinton is uniquely unsuited to this epic task.
While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful
corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s
built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words,
isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology:
one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant
speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly
struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all."
"The problem with Clinton World is structural. It’s the way in which
these profoundly enmeshed relationships—lubricated by the exchange of
money, favors, status, and media attention—shape what gets proposed as
policy in the first place.[...] At the center of it all is the canonical belief that change comes not by
confronting the wealthy and powerful but by partnering with them.
Viewed from within the logic of what Thomas Frank recently termed 'the land of money,' all of Hillary Clinton’s most controversial
actions make sense. Why not take money from fossil-fuel lobbyists? Why
not get paid hundreds of thousands for speeches to Goldman Sachs? It’s
not a conflict of interest; it’s a mutually beneficial partnership—part
of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.