I have been voting in Democratic primaries since the 1960s, and I have never witnessed one in which there was a greater sense of the fix being in, despite an immense groundswell of support for Bernie Sanders.

The coronation of Hillary Clinton in 2016 began as soon as Obama won the nomination in 2008. The superdelegate system, installed by corporate Democrats in the 1980s, has enabled an oligarchy of party notables to ride roughshod over the progressive Sanders’ candidacy. Some one-third of delegates, representing powerful interests, will cast their votes for Clinton regardless of the outcome in each state’s election.

Such oligarchic control contradicts the very purpose of primaries, to express the popular will. In Oregon, we have elite superdelegates like Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum declaring she will vote in the convention for her favorite, Clinton, despite the will of the voters in choosing Sanders by over 10 percent. Others override popular will with simplistic assertions like, “It’s her turn.”

Since when is the election of a nominee for the highest office a matter of taking turns, like children on a see saw? This is not a monarchy with a set succession to the presidency. Many Democrats would like to see a woman president, but we have solid reasons for opposing Clinton.

I, for one, strongly oppose her extreme militarism in foreign policy. She is part of a bipartisan neo-conservative faction, which seeks U.S. domination over the entire earth, and exercises special belligerence towards Russia. It was Bill Clinton who, against the strong advice of cold war architects like Soviet expert George Kennan, chose to retain and expand NATO, a military alliance against the Soviet Union, even after it was abolished, with Russia going capitalistic.

Under neo-con imperialist influence, with Hillary’s hearty support, NATO has surrounded Russia with troops and missile bases, and they have plans to do the same with China. Clinton and her neo-con cabal seek to bring “regime change” to Russia, much as they have done in the Middle East. Such policy needlessly risks nuclear war. Sanders eschews “regime change,” favoring diplomacy instead.

While pursuing dangerous, aggressive foreign policy, Clinton Democrats gain most of their support from the corporate-financial elites who have given us the vastly unequal society Sanders progressives indict. It is the height of arrogance for Democratic elites to short circuit a vast popular upsurge for peace and equality. The result will badly split the party.

Stephen Berk

Astoria