TEHRAN – Political analyst Yuram Abdullah Weiler is of the opinion that is it the rich which will determine the fate of presidential election in the United States.

“Wealthy individuals, such as casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, hedge fund manager Paul Singer, super PAC organizer and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, by means of their obscenely exorbitant campaign contributions to the candidates of their choosing, actually decide who will be U.S. president,” Weiler tells the Tehran Times.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: Why the number Republican primary voters are more than those of Democrats in the campaign for the next year's presidential election?
A: Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Citizen’s United case, campaign funding became much easier. All a candidate needs is a rich benefactor and he or she can run, and of course, the majority of the rich are aligned with the Republicans. Theoretically, the Citizen’s United decision opened the door for unions to fund candidates, too, but with only some 10% of the U.S. labor force holding union membership, unions do not have the financial resources to field viable candidates hence the dominance by the corporate-vetted Republican hopefuls.
Q: Surveys show that Donald Trump, a Republican, enjoys a better status in comparison to other primaries. What are the reasons?
A: While presidential hopeful Donald Trump is being billed as a “Republican,” he is actually more of a Republican renegade as opposed to being a member of the “country club” inner circle of Republicans. This can be inferred by Trump’s choice of a campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who himself is considered to be a Republican outcast. With a reputation of being very aggressive and someone who can get things done, Lewandowski joined the Trump campaign from the billionaire Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity (AFP) at a reported salary of $20,000 a month. For his part, Trump claims not to be accepting campaign money from anyone and currently ranks 14th among candidates, both Democratic and Republican, with Republican Jeb Bush on top followed closely by Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Q: Some argue that the reason behind Trump's popularity is that he says something distinctive from other Republicans and Democrats. In other words, he enjoys more popularity simply because he takes stances different from those of two mainstream political factions. Do you agree with this view?
A: If by something distinctive you mean crass, vulgar and racist remarks, which even in the no-holes-barred atmosphere of an American presidential campaign make the eyes of seasoned and credentialed Potomac pundits roll, then he is truly distinctive from the 15-odd other Republican presidential hopefuls. However, considering that Mr. Trump is a real estate and casino tycoon as well as a reality TV show producer, such behavior–whether or not his campaign goes anywhere–only adds recognition to his “brand.” In other words, running for president for him is a win-win endeavor.
As far as the actual content of his message, he is advocating tax cuts for all Americans and proposing four tax brackets with a ceiling of 25% along with a flat tax on business–whether family-run or Fortune 500 corporation–of 15%. He is in favor on cutting back the Department of Education and has spoken out vigorously against Common Core, a set of proposed U.S. national scholastic standards in mathematics and English language arts and literacy aimed at arresting the slide in the quality of American education. Last but not least, Trump insists that climate change is a hoax, a message that seems to gain a lot of traction with the relatively scientifically ignorant American masses. In short, the message is not new; it is virtually the same as Reagan’s message of some 35 years ago in a more flamboyant wrapper.
Q: What social classes are attracted by the slogans made by Democrats and Republicans?
A: I doubt seriously that any of these millionaire candidates, whether billing themselves as Republican or Democrat, have any genuine empathy for the predicament of the average American who must live from paycheck to paycheck and must rely on Obamacare for health insurance, which is essentially unaffordable because of the escalating deductibles.
Most Americans can sense that there is something systemically wrong with the economy that prevents them from succeeding no matter how hard they work or how many jobs they hold. Symptomatic of this issue is the burgeoning U.S. trade deficit, which has soared to over $10 trillion over the past decades, an amount which represents over 12 million jobs lost. With American industry in a state of collapse, there are no manufacturing jobs being created to sustain a middle class, so necessary for the development of a healthy, more egalitarian society. Instead, America leads the world with the highest child poverty rate of any developed nation while the top 0.1% own as much as the bottom 90% of the population and the trade deficit continues to accumulate at the breathtaking rate of $1.2 million every minute.
The only mainstream candidate that is even talking about these issues is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist. He correctly points out that there has been a 40-year decline in the American middle class and that only drastic change such as universal health care and redistribution of wealth will correct the problem. Unfortunately, Sanders appears to have capitulated to Hillary Clinton during the televised Democratic debate when he came to her defense over the issue of the classified emails on the unsecure server, saying that “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”
Q: Media outlets report of 10% decline in Hillary Clinton's popularity. What are the reasons for this?
A: I rarely agree with neocon Zionist ideologue Charles Krauthammer, who somehow manages to justify every atrocity committed by the Israeli entity, but this time, I believe he has correctly predicted that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Much is being made of her supposedly stellar performance in the Democratic presidential debate and pollsters are now putting her ahead of the other Democratic frontrunner, Bernie Sanders.
However, it must be pointed out that these debates are orchestrated by a joint Democratic-Republican entity created in 1987 precisely for the reason of controlling who gained access to the media and what topics would be discussed. For example, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, independent candidate for president in 2000, was excluded from the debates as was Harvard law professor and Democratic candidate Larry Lessig, who was denied a vacant podium (presumably held open in case Vice President Joe Biden decided to run at the last minute) at last Tuesday’s Democratic debates. Professor Lessig has written a cogent series of essays of policy positions on a wide range of important issues that the other candidates avoid, such as the student debt crisis, NSA surveillance of citizens, removal of the Social Security income cap and revival of the Glass-Steagall act.
In the final analysis, it is not the American people but a handful of well-heeled plutocrats who will select the next U.S. president, since despite all the rhetoric, Americans still cannot vote directly for their president. Rather, wealthy individuals, such as casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, hedge fund manager Paul Singer, super PAC organizer and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, by means of their obscenely exorbitant campaign contributions to the candidates of their choosing, actually decide who will be U.S. president. And then the members of the Electoral College ultimately confirm this selection, which many times in the past has been in direct conflict with the will of the people as expressed in the popular vote.
How unfair is the U.S. system of elections? In a 2012 report, the Canada-based Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) wrote, “The American Federal electoral system borders a failed state as determined by the overall unsatisfactory audit score of 54.5 percent (out of 100 percent). In a 2011 report, the FDA ranked the U.S. behind France, Venezuela, Finland, Lebanon, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and Argentina in terms of overall electoral fairness. The primary flaw in the U.S. electoral process is a set of campaign finance laws that allow the rich to dominate and control the system of elections. Until that system is changed–and I believe this would take an armed revolt–U.S. elections merely reflect the will of the wealthy in a decidedly unfair and undemocratic way.

*****highlight*******
I doubt seriously that any of these millionaire candidates, whether billing themselves as Republican or Democrat, have any genuine empathy for the predicament of the average American who must live from paycheck to paycheck and must rely on Obamacare for health insurance, which is essentially unaffordable because of the escalating deductibles.