Understanding the Connection: Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush
As two prominent figures in American politics, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush have more in common than one might initially think. Both of these candidates exhibit a corporate loyalty and strong adherence to the political establishment, making them representative of the status quo rather than agents of change.
Key Commonalities
Both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush share a belief in progressive taxation, arguing for a higher tax rate on earned income compared to unearned income. This reflects a commitment to preserving the financial interests of the wealthy elite who have significant influence over political decisions. Additionally, both candidates support a deregulated financial sector, opposing measures like the Glass-Steagall Act, which was aimed at separating investment and commercial banking.
Foreign policy is another area where these two figures share a notable alignment. Both promote an interventionist approach to global affairs, evidenced by their stances on conflicts such as the Iraq War and the Iran nuclear deal. Their differing but warmongering approaches indicate a deep commitment to maintaining U.S. dominance and interests abroad.
The Twisted Message of Political Calculation
While Clinton and Bush present themselves as distinct alternatives—half the bottles being "better" than the other—their actual policies and interests align closely with those of corporate America. This is reflected in their strategic use of slogans, marketing, and political messaging. They essentially sell the same product, using different labels to appeal to specific segments of the electorate.
For example, Clinton's campaign often emphasizes her experience and capability, while Bush uses a combination of nostalgia and accusations of change fatigue to sway voters. Both candidates leverage Super PACs to circumvent campaign donation limits, though Clinton has taken a slightly different stance by speaking out against the misuse of Super PACs.
The Doublespeak of Political Candidates
The use of centrism is a strategic move for both candidates, as it positions them as the most viable choice within their respective political parties. Despite their differences, they both appeal to the center, believing it will maximize their chances of electoral success.
Moreover, their backgrounds as politicians who have climbed their way up through the party hierarchy highlight a legacy of tradition and institutional influence. Both individuals represent a system that has remained largely unchanged for at least the past three decades. This continuity is their primary appeal to many—but also their biggest drawback, as it raises questions about their willingness to implement meaningful change.
Despite these similarities, the difference in their messaging and target demographic is interesting. The marketing strategy, akin to pouring the same cola into bottles with different labels, makes many voters believe that their election outcomes would bring significantly different results. This is, of course, a perennial joke on both candidates, as their policies and platforms often coalesce around the same corporate interests.