If Hillary Clinton ends up winning the Democratic nomination for president, some Bernie Sanders supporters will vote for her anyway. I can respect that decision. While the differences between Democrats and Republicans are often overstated – to give just two examples (there are many), the same people advise Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz on foreign policy and Hillary Clinton is at least as cozy with Wall Street as most Republicans – there are some real and important reasons to worry about a Republican White House. The Supreme Court and heads of agencies are, in my view, the biggest concerns in this vein. I’d have low hopes for Hillary Clinton’s appointees but no doubts that they’d be better on balance than those offered by a Trump, Cruz, or Rubio.
Yet I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. While I understand the lesser-of-two-evils mentality, I disagree with it; most of Clinton’s policy positions are unacceptable to me. If Sanders loses the primary, I will probably vote for Jill Stein.
Wouldn’t that be a strategic blunder, some friends and family ask me? Democrats who aren’t quite as polite ask if I’m an idiot. Don’t I realize that this type of thinking led to George W. Bush becoming president in 2000 and that I may similarly “blow this election” by deciding to vote my conscience?
The premise of these questions, however, is completely wrong, and not just because, as Jim Hightower documented at the time, voting records show that “Gore was the problem, not Nader,” in the 2000 election. In fact, refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election is both a principled and strategic decision that I encourage more people to embrace.
There are two possibilities when it comes to my vote: it will either impact the outcome of the election or it won’t. If my vote won’t impact the outcome of the election, I might as well vote for the candidate with the best policy positions, regardless of his or her supposed electability.
If my vote will impact the outcome of the election, I may have to decide which matters more: (a) the differences between a bad Democrat and worse Republican over the next four years or (b) the degree to which I’d undermine our chances to enact fundamental change to a broken political system in the long-run by pursuing a lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy.
As I’ve noted before, the type of political “pragmatism” that would lead someone to choose (a) undermines power-balancing policy goals. Because politicians and Democratic party officials know that many voters think this way, they have little incentive to listen to our concerns. Instead, they can pay lip service to progressive values while crafting a policy agenda and decision-making process more responsive to wealthy donors than to their constituents.
That dynamic is on full display already in the 2016 Democratic primary election. Clinton is campaigning against priorities, like single-payer health care, that Democrats are supposed to embrace. While early union endorsements for Clinton initially improved her rhetoric on education issues to some degree, she is already backtracking to assure corporate donors that her positions are unchanged. The unions who endorsed Clinton early have no negotiating power relative to rich donors who make their support contingent on Clinton pursuing their interests; given that fact and her record, she seems unlikely to keep her promises if elected.
The Democratic National Committee’s actions are also illustrative. The party establishment lined up behind Clinton before the race even started, and the DNC’s debate schedule is, despite their protestations to the contrary, quite obviously constructed to insulate Clinton from challenge. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s recent decision to suspend Sanders’ campaign’s access to its voter data (in response to a data breach by a since-fired Sanders staffer; the access was restored after the Sanders campaign sued the DNC) has caused even party loyalists to believe that the DNC “is putting [its] finger on [the] scale” and pro-Clinton journalists to acknowledge that the DNC’s behavior “makes Clinton’s lead look illegitimate, or at least, invites too many ‘what ifs.’”
Both Clinton and party leaders are making a mockery of many of the principles the party is supposed to stand for. And pledging to support Clinton in the end – no matter what she and the DNC do – enables this kind of behavior. It’s hard for me to see how we will ever fix our political process and reclaim our democracy by refusing to draw some lines in the sand.
I could accuse those who disagree with that assessment of propping up a sham political system. I could say that, by downplaying the unfounded smears the Clinton campaign has spread against Sanders and insisting that we must support Clinton in the general if she wins the nomination, they are destroying the Democrats’ credibility and thus helping to ensure ever more privilege-defending and corrupt elected officials and government policy. But it would be a lot fairer of me to acknowledge that a lot of the Republicans are really scary, that my strategy isn’t guaranteed to work the way I think it will, and that people evaluate the risks differently than I do.
Similarly, those who disagree can continue to accuse people like me of “helping the GOP” in the 2016 election by pointing out that the Democrats have extreme flaws and don’t always deserve our support. But it would be a lot fairer of them to acknowledge that millions upon millions of people have suffered at the hands of lesser-of-two-evils candidates over the years, that an open commitment to support a lesser-of-two-evils candidate robs voters of bargaining power, and that the Democratic Party has brought voter discontent upon itself.
Hopefully Sanders will win the Democratic primary and this discussion will become a moot point. In the meantime, it’s good for those of us who believe in social justice to push each other on our tactics. We would just do well to remember that reasonable people with the same goals can disagree about which electoral strategy is most likely to help us achieve them.
51 responses to “Why I Reject Lesser-of-Two-Evils-ism”
Thanks, Ben, for your integrity to NOT endorse Ms. Clinton with your vote. The Green Party, btw, endorses monetary reform as a party platform.
Ms. Clinton is a War Criminal, traitor for engaging US military into unlawful conflicts that are literal attacks upon our nation, partner to Wall Street banksters engaging in admitted market rigging, and serial liar.
I will continue to point to “Emperor’s New Clothes” obvious facts that US wars on what, eight or nine nations now, are Orwellian opposite of lawful and all started on lies known to be lies when they were told, the US has fundamental fraud to call debt its Orwellian opposite of “money,” and these .01% types cheer-lead by people by Ms. Clinton and on her own actions engage in lives of lies that are soooo easy to prove with the facts.
Ben, my colleagues and friends estimate we have about a million of us on Earth pointing to the obvious facts, such as our mutual friends, Dennis and Elizabeth Kucinich.
None of my comments are ad hominem, merely statements of fact that my colleagues and I ongoingly find zero refutation or intelligent challenge. Documentation: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-recognizing-the-emperors-new-clothes-as-the-story-of-today-1-of-7.html
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
By not voting for Hillary Clinton you are in fact voting for the Republican candidate, period!
Hi Colin. Given the documentation I provided above in my comment of the limits of war law, can you please explain how the wars that both parties’ “leaderships” support is lawful?
Those of us working on this issue have never found an argument that these wars are lawful that actually state the law; you’re welcome to look. Therefore, would you agree that Hillary is a War Criminal for supporting unlawful Wars of Aggression?
By voting for Clinton your voting republican. Her actions are more in the vain of a Dwight D. Eisenhower republican, not a FDR democrat. Both owned by big business. Who figure they win both ways.
Today, there is no such thing as an Eisenhower Republican, nor any proximity to him in the modern Republican Party. I would be proud to have the maximum tax rate we had under Ike. Under him we instituted the interstate highway system, akin to Clinton’s recognition of our need for infrastructure repair. Moreover, Ike appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court (I would discuss further but the Warren Court speaks for itself through the myriad rights recognized). Further, there was an effort to end segregation; the Marshsls were sent in under Ike, not JFK.
In fairness there were numerous things wrong, from mass deportations, the Cuban Revolution and sour Latin American relations, to McCarthy (albeit HUAC started under Truman). Yes, please remember Ike warned against the Military-industrial complex.
Hillary is so far above Ike as to make the comparison improper (even though Ike did many good things). First, healthcare. Second, prevent violence against women. Third, equal pay for women. Fourth, the right to choose. Fifth, raising the minimum wage. Fifth, student loan relief. Sixth, far more sophisticated and advanced race relations. Seventh, more religious freedom (particularly as to Jews and Moslems). Eighth, a non isolationist foreign policy (Ike half heartedly involved us in various military actions which were doomed to failure by being half hearted). Ninth , support for unions.
Finally, I do not oppose business out of hand. Google is not Mobile-Exxon. Many middle class Americans depend on an effective business community to maintain their pensions (yes, I know many are underfunded); seniors as well as millennials.
Trump means the end of American social safety net and a rise in intolerance (empowered white supremacists groups). Our position in the world would be ridiculed, HUGELY. There is no way America can allow Trump to succeed.
Colin, you’re simply wrong. I’m voting for Bernie Sanders, PERIOD! If you don’t want to see a Republican elected, get behind Bernie.
Thanks, Kenn. And Colin: don’t you prefer simple factual integrity to assert US wars as unlawful, the economy run as a rigged-casino with obvious solutions ignored, and that “leadership” was/is captured by .01% oligarchs with obvious crimes centered in war, money, and lies?
I don’t think you’ll respond to these questions; prove me wrong. You wish for the Left arm of one fascist political body to be a little forward of the Right arm, that’s all. Be sure to address the questions, if you care enough about millions killed, billions harmed, and trillions looted.
Please don’t whine that the lesser of two evils is all that is possible, unless that is the future you choose to work for.
It may only be the very young who are able to embrace idealism while pushing pragmatism away.
I am sure that idealists in many places in the United States watched the devastation of Katrina on the news, kept safe from the storm and “Brownie,” never experiencing the horror first hand. Some may have sent money, while many so suffered due to their idealistic non-pragmatic choice allowing Bush to lead this nation.
I am sure that the idealists who saw Nader as a choice versus a flawed Gore were self-satisfied while Alito and Roberts joined the Supreme Court. Gun control? Tell the parents of dead children how the new Justices who thought the “preamble” to the Second Amendment was mere verbage, was a proper extension of your idealism.
Oh yes, and remember those who would support the reduction of the food stamp program because evil pragmatism did not win out. Tell the would be recipients that they can go hungry for four years, while your idealistic choices are made; can’t they? Tell their babies who cry how you, who have been privileged to have a great education and good job (albeit probably beneath you) , are fixing a system and in the long run, for the greater number, your idealism is more important than pragmatic food or healthcare.
I am old and have seen this before. However I actually felt suffering. I realized that my quasi privileged existence was a charge to fight for idealistic goals but not to ignore reality if I lost my fight. Again, I am old, and I try to remember my impossible dreams. But, in the end, I am satisfied that no baby went hungry, no person was denied healthcare or education because it was “my ideals or nothing.”
Finally, 34Justice, I gave up my chance to become rich by choosing a 35 year career as a public servant, a prosecutor, having put myself through law school while teaching in an inner city middle school. I saw the raw world up close. And I don’t regret one moment of my choice, idealism applied pragmatically.
It sounds like you have done a lot of important work throughout your life for social justice causes – that’s awesome. And I certainly understand the concerns you express. What I want to underscore, however, is that this decision is not one of pure “idealism” (though I do have a privileged background and am happy to acknowledge that I experience the consequences of policy decisions less acutely than do members of less privileged groups).
What about those in deep poverty who have suffered because of the welfare reform bill Bill Clinton helped work on, and that Hillary Clinton supported? How about those who have been deprived of their liberty because of the War on Drugs that the Clintons helped to promote? What about the millions of innocent Muslim children who have been killed by Barack Obama’s continuation and escalation of George W. Bush’s War on Terror (not to mention those killed in the war that most Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, voted for?).
I am concerned about the same groups of people that you care about (I have also worked with them). My strategy is driven by my belief that one of the best ways to help them is to bring about a political system that can end the oppression they face at the hands of lesser-of-two-evils candidates. It is fine if you disagree and think that we can’t possibly help all of these people, but please don’t suggest that those who reject lesser-of-two-evils voting care less than you do about disadvantaged populations – it’s both incorrect and unhelpful.
Thanks for reading the piece, though, and for engaging in the work you do!
I apologize if I created the impression that you did not care. My concern is solely for the people who have to live day by day while great political revolutions are fought, even by the most caring.
Please understand that I am not against political change, even systematic change. Nor do I believe that supporters of Bernie should give up. Far from it. Pursue the nomination and good luck to him (he would be our first President who is also Jewish, a small revolution in its own). But if the nomination is lost, then rally around so that we do not sink further into the abyss (PS, I expressed this point to the party in suggesting that Hillary supporters rally around Barack).
I understand that the Clinton administration was not perfect. The welfare reform and the war on drugs were carryovers of their Republican counterparts. That having been said, how much more severe would it have been for everyday Americans had Republicans been fully in control?
Admittedly, Democrats appear far more likely to compromise than Republicans (see Bernie’s explanation of his gun control vote). This leads to imperfections, but compromise was the essence of our nation.
But examine your point re Middle Eastern wars. How many more would die if a border line isolationist (not really Bernie) lost a nomination and we failed to support the closer alternative (not that Hillary is a closer alternative, but after all we are examining this theoretically).
I recall people lining up to get blocks of cheese. It was dehumanizing, but at least my classmates had something to eat. With apologies to the opponents of trite, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Would we, could we survive a Cruz or Trump presidency. How many human rights can acceptably disappear behind the facade of a new “great America,” how much racial/ethnic targeting can we permit to exist to justify refusing a lesser of two evils vote?
Thanks for the reply. I take all your points, but just to reiterate mine: I believe many of the problems you mention are the direct product of a system in which the supposedly “liberal” option is someone (Hillary Clinton) whose policies would oppress millions of people. I believe a lesser-of-two-evils vote enables that system; it deprives people who believe in power-balancing policy of a lot of their bargaining power within the Democratic Party. To rephrase your question and pose it back to you: how many more lives would be saved if those of us who care about oppressed people rose up as a bloc and told the Democratic Party that being better than the Republican Party isn’t good enough – and if, as a result, we were able to elect truly power-balancing representatives into office in subsequent elections?
Again, I definitely understand where you are coming from. I just don’t see how we get to where you and I both want to go with lesser-of-two-evils voting.
We may not agree on this point, and that’s okay; we can endorse different electoral strategies. What’s most important, in my view, is that we avoid the temptation to blame our friends, remember that we’re fighting for the same cause, and band together to work on it in our other endeavors.
The whole reason poor black people were in such a vulnerable state in New Orleans – and that all people of color and white people are so vulnerable – in the first place is thanks to Clinton I cutting funds for housing, infrastructure, welfare and education to build more prisons, hire more cops and prison guards, and clear the way for his rich donors to speculate their way into the billionaire class with our deposits and mortgage payments in their portfolios. The XX chromosome Clinton has also disparaged Obama for not bombing enough nations and not putting more troops in war zones for her war profiteer donors. She’d also rather restart the Cold War and arms race with Russia for her arms dealing donors. Obama has just offered a pro-Citizens United Republican for the Supreme Court. Hillary will do the same, just a pro-abortion one. Those social issue liberals/economic conservatives do exist in the Republican Party. Trump is one of them – he’s actually voiced pro-choice views, and anti-war views that make her look rabid. He’s still a lying self-serving one percenter, but she’s also backing a white male pro-Wall St Chris Van Hollen over black female Donna Edwards for Senator. Nothing improves with Hillary, much will get worse. But it’s your choice. Just know, when the next bombs are launched and next semi-secular Arab nation falls, or leftist president in Latin America is deposed in a coup, while Yemen is disintegrated by her pals in Saudi Arabia and the rest of Africa keeps being treated like a resource extraction site, there will be blowback. Lots of it. And more refugees, from her interventions as well as the climate disasters she’ll provoke to appease her fossil fuel donors. When African are dying by the thousands of drought and starvation, she’ll start a big drive to get millions in donations that Africans, like Haitians, will never see. Oh, and the dead and maimed soldiers, and those who commit suicide in droves after her interventions? Those will be on the ones who vote for her, too. As for the Nader meme, toss it, it’s been debunked at least a thousand times. Gore didn’t even win his home state, remember? And he quit instead of fighting back.
Kerry, as a 55-year-old veteran teacher of inner-city schools, I commend your self-expression of practical on-the-ground service.
This said, as an attorney I ask you to provide the very first legal argument we have found that current US wars/armed attacks on what, 8 or 9 current nations, are lawful. This is the same question I asked Colin, with war law linked in that comment.
I worked with both parties’ “leaderships” for 18 years and two UN summits for heads of state. Both parties reneged on every promise, public and private, to end poverty. Both parties engage in unlawful wars of aggression. Both parties support the rigged casino of Wall Street banksters.
Our system is fascist, Kerry. Look up that political system definition and explain if that’s the best description of what we have today. US fascism has a Left and Right arm.
Ben is a new leader to support, Kerry, in just work to break-out of the criminal system we have (always “covered” by corporate media).
Btw: I worked with Ms. Clinton for the 1997 Microcredit Summit. It’s only testimony, but I’ll offer it as a legally-classified expert in this field: she’s a witch who promised everything and did nothing. The cost of her lives is about a million dead children from preventable poverty every month.
The Left/Right paradigm is a false choice, counselor.
Think and live outside that box.
Carl, I am far from sufficiently skilled to answer the question of how wars are legally justified. I had only taken one course on international law and as I remember it never touched on the justification of war.
I believe that there are various treaties and agreements which set forth legal justifications from self defense to defense of others (i.e. prevent genocide or violations of international law).
As to ending poverty, I believe that promises to end poverty are absurd. Forgive the sophistry but poverty is not an absolute, it is a relative state. Poverty today is far from 18th century poverty. What we can do is improve standards of living. Both parties believe, in varying respects, that improvements in the economy and invention will cause a rise in S.O.L.
I was,and am, still impressed by Michael Harrington’s work on poverty. That being said, I believe better education is the closest thing we have to starting to improve life and thinking outside the box.
Are we fascistic? I leave that to greater political theorists.
Kerry, you didn’t even look at the law from the link I provided, correct? You wouldn’t make the same argument to understand what a stop sign means in traffic law or what the rule means when a runner is safe or out at first base, so perhaps you should assume that the most important laws are meant to be understood by all to achieve their purpose: an end to Wars of Aggression. Baseball rules are more complex than war law; compare the two and then you tell us.
You also argue from ignorance as to what those promises to end poverty actually are, and how poverty is mathematically defined in specific areas for well-being. You know better, Kerry; try asking questions when you don’t know something. The result of these promises is saving ~ one million human lives a month who currently die horrific slow, painful deaths, while reducing population growth rates from every historical case. These deaths from intentional policy are ongoing Crimes Against Humanity; fully supported by both parties’ “leaderships.” Documentation: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/crimes-against-humanity-01-poverty-murder-over-400-million-people-since-1995-more-than-all-wars-in-recorded-history.html
And finally, you didn’t even look up the word, “fascism,” right?
I invite you to live the education you advocate in just these two areas of war law and ending poverty to see what the Left arm of US politics looks like from that specific education. Read just those two articles, verify the facts, and reflect. Then read the definition of fascism.
Do you accept, Kerry?
It is not pragmatic to vote for Hillary Clinton. It is anti-pragmatic. It’s hard to explain this to people like yourself. Political game theory makes it very clear, though. Voting for Hillary Clinton is a losing move, unless you’re a Republican.
I have read your terse statement about “people like yourself”? First, I wonder what those people are, can you describe them? Second, I wonder what constitutes “political game theory” and your expertise in that realm? Third, I wonder why someone as obviously brilliant as yourself would find any difficulty explaining anything, unless of course, there is no explanation possible? Fourth, I wonder why you believe that a Republican Supreme Court will be a good thing? Finally, I wonder why Republican functionaries, paid political operatives, are so strongly opposed to Hillary, if voting for her is in their best interest (don’t you think that these people are aware of political game theory)?
The writer is apparently too young (and/or unaware) to know that Hillary Clinton was the U.S.’s first serious health care reformer. I don’t agree with all of Clinton’s stances and policies, but attacking her on health care is ridiculous. 1993 Health Security Act anyone? I was attending U.C. Santa Cruz at the time, and even the most radical among us acknowledged her serious activism as First Lady. The act was nicknamed “HillaryCare,” and it paved the way for the ACA. (The battle she faced was almost identical to Obama’s, and he was wise enough to learn from it.)
This is why more mature, aware voters with long-term memories simply roll our eyes at any suggestion that Hillary Clinton is not a serious health care reformer. Ben Spielberg reflects a great deal of immaturity in trying to claim Clinton is campaigning against the Democratic value of serious health care reform when she CREATED the Democratic value of serious health care reform.
She, too, has a long-term memory, and she is experienced enough to understand that she needs to campaign on building upon the ACA right now. Spielberg reminds me of voters in 2000 who were unaware that Gore was a serious environmentalist, despite the fact that he published Earth in the Balance in 1992. Nearly 3 million voters instead embraced Nader, whose environmentalism pales in comparison to Gore’s. History only repeats itself if we choose not to learn from it.
Ok, Christine, same question to you: explain how the US wars Ms. Clinton supports are lawful.
Then, please document her current promises for universal healthcare rather than capitulation to corporate interests in their “care for health.”
All professional US economic cost-benefit analyses conclude “We the People” would save between $100 billion to $300 billion every year with universal healthcare. Polls show among her party, they overwhelmingly prefer this policy rather than 1/3 of all health expenses going to these insurance middle-men. Explain how Ms. Clinton shows leadership when she fails to mention this TREMENDOUS amounts of our money for the option she claimed to support and apparently has abandoned. Documentation: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/11/more-criminal-fraud-obamacare-transfers-100-300-billionyear-from-99-to-1.html
Thanks for the comment. I actually am well aware that Hillary Clinton had a better position on health care in the 1990s; that is one of the few major issues she was on the right side of during that time period. My comment that she is “campaigning against priorities, like single-payer health care, that Democrats are supposed to embrace” is, however, a description of what she is doing *during the current primary* (she did this during both the last debate – see http://www.salon.com/2015/12/20/hillary_clinton_just_slimed_bernie_sanders_with_a_discredited_rupert_murdoch_attack_on_single_payer_health_care/ – and in the weeks before that – see http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/18/hillary-clinton-attacks-bernie-sanders-plan-single-payer-healthcare, for example).
If you think it is a smart political move for her to undermine a plan like the one she proposed in the 1990s, I strongly disagree with that assessment; I explained why in my linked article, and many people agree with me (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-taxes_564bcbbfe4b06037734ba1bd, for example). Rather than suggesting that such opinions are immature, I’d encourage you to engage with those of us who hold them and to present your case on its merits.
I have been having an intense discussion about this wth a friend of mine, lately. While I agree that Clinton is an awful option if she becomes the nominee, I have some serious misgivings with your, and others like you, argument that refusing to vote for Clinton is in any way a substantive or productive option for anyone except relatively privileged white liberals like yourself. Yes, I think you are right in critiquing Clinton for her similarities on foreign policy and economic reform with some of he GOP. That said, you cannot in good conscience suggest that a GOP presidency will not have serious material consequences for the poor, people of color, queers, and women. As such, I am given pause regarding your assertions that you need to take a “principled position” over the material well-being of the very people you seem to invest so much time fighting for in your social justice work. While I do not doubt that you have good intentions, there is no way to reconcile your argument with your desire for social justice. Yes, while in principle, voting for the Green Party will have some symbolic capital in mostly affluent white liberal communities, it will have not affect on the actual political process; it never has in al the years the GP has been around. I would also point out that there is an suspicious homogeneity in the people supporting this argument, which frankly gives the whole spectacle a disingenuous air. If you are actually as invested in social justice as you seem to claim, where are the people of color, queers, feminists, and poor people advocating for your absolutist boycott of Hillary? I have asked this of every one I know who suggests a similar argument, and yet no one has offered an answer. Given this circumstance, it seems like your argument becomes either one where your idealogical purity (principles) are more important that the well being of those worse off than you, or you are rejecting your social justice principles and suggesting that economy trumps other identitarian minority forms of oppression. Neither of these seem particularly compatible with the your work you write about elsewhere in your blog. While we often feel like we are doing the most important work we can, given the recourses we have available, there is a troubling history of white men of the Left prognosticating about universal well being, while completely ignoring their own privilege. It seems to me that your argument here bears an uncanny resemblance to this rhetorical formation.
As a suggestion, I suggest that perhaps the problem here is primarily one of timing rather than substance. I agree that there is something crucial to be gained in convincing others to not vote for dynasty candidates like Clinton. However, the time to make that argument and organize support from the people whose lives will be affected the most immediately if your strategy backfires and a GOP president is elected, is not mere months before the nomination process has concluded. Now is too late to make absolute refusals to vote in such a way that will only deeply affect the lives of those who are less privileged than you. If you are to make this argument now, then leave your privilege (and the principles that only come with it) at the door and make you argument conditional. Fight for what you believe is the best option, but if you cannot garner the support of those who need help the most, then when it comes time to vote, shut the fuck up and vote for their best interested, not your feelings. (Yes, your political principles are only feelings.) That means, this time around, voting for whoever the Democratic nominee happens to be. After the election, then you begin again, trying to gain actual support from the people who are most at risk in our society from day one, not 6 months before the nominations. Ultimately, you have an obligation to do right by those who are more at risk than you. If you don’t, you will have a lot to answer for if things go wrong in the general election, and we wind up with GOP control of the government. If this happens, will you take responsibility fr your role in the outcome? Are you going to go drive women across state lines to get access to affordable reproductive care? Are you going to make sure that people of color have access to vote? Will you make sure that transgender people will have adequate workplace and healthcare protections? Sorry if I am not convinced that you, or others who suggest that boycotting Hillary at all costs will actually follow through on the harm they might cause. It’s just that historically, the track record for liberal white guys doing right by those who are less well-off then them is not good.
You didn’t ask me Brandon, but this is crucial, and the same question I asked others: explain how the wars Ms. Clinton supports are lawful given these US ongoing armed attacks are Orwellian opposite of war law. Documentation: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-recognizing-the-emperors-new-clothes-as-the-story-of-today-1-of-7.html
Also, I worked with Ms. Clinton at the UN Microcredit Summit in 1997 to help the poorest of the poor. She, like her husband, promised everything and did nothing. Documentation: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/crimes-against-humanity-01-poverty-murder-over-400-million-people-since-1995-more-than-all-wars-in-recorded-history.html
As I previously commented, she reneged on universal health care.
Given obvious economic solutions, she supports the Big Banks. Documentation of obvious solutions, strongly supported by Ben and my mutual friend, Dennis Kucinich: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/bankster-looting-fundamental-fraud-that-debt-is-money-5-of-7.html
So, Brandon, you present the false choice of Left and Right arms of US fascism. Neither party has interest in real solutions. You want us to “shut the f**k up” about these facts? In addition, corporate media herd us into this false choice. You’ve noticed this, right? Corporate media: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-lying-corporate-media-required-propaganda-trying-to-hide-naked-empire-6-of-7.html
Brandon: please answer these questions about war and media, consider her actions to reject ending poverty and real economic reform, then reframe how Ms. Clinton is at all helpful to anyone, the poor included.
These questions, while important, really have no bearing on any of the critique that I made here. Like I said, Clinton is not a good choice, but given the real and devastating harm that will come to certain minorities from a GOP election, particularly in this election cycle, I really find the refusal to vote fro Clinton if she is nominated pretty specious.
Also, if you are going to respond in such a condescending manner, you could at least do me the favor of not misconstruing what I wrote. In no way did I say that we should “shut the fuck up” about facts, or even about complaining and critiquing. Rather, I pointed to a very specific circumstance in which there is a time for privileged folks to shut the fuck up and take a back seat to the people who are more in need of help. So, since you didn’t bother to pay particularly close attention of my remarks, I’ll leave it at that. I find no point in answering your questions about big banks, and the military industrial complex, since I agree with you that Clinton is too cozy with both. But, that is not relevant to the specific critique I am bringing to the “boycott Hillary” argument, which focuses on other crucial issues of immediate survival regardless of big banks and war.
No disrespect or condescension meant, Brandon; I apologize 🙂
The biggest survival issue for humans, in this case almost all with people of color, is ongoing global poverty that kills ~30,000 people daily in gruesomely slow agony. The so-called “former” colonial powers have promised to end poverty (just .07% of GNI to do so) since 1969, but psychopathically pretend to care as the US leads in Wars of Aggression to control areas of interest with installed puppet governments.
So, Ms. Clinton has been a “leader” with this policy of death; in fact, refusing to end poverty while it makes a profit through microcredit. The total deaths since just 1995 is ~400 million. This is more than all deaths from all wars in all recorded history! These are Crimes Against Humanity, Brandon.
Any human being aware of these facts MUST never ever ever ever vote to continue them.
Any human being with intellectual integrity and moral courage MUST demand arrests of such obvious criminal “leaders” centered in war, money, and lies.
You really want “immediate survival” as you say, Brandon? If so, along with Ms. Clinton supporting and threatening more war, especially on Iran, that could trigger WW3, I invite you to reconsider your position.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Documentation of ongoing poverty-murders by Ms. Clinton and the other “leaders” of US neocolonialism: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/crimes-against-humanity-01-poverty-murder-over-400-million-people-since-1995-more-than-all-wars-in-recorded-history.html
Oh, and if you want some hard-hitting facts and analysis on Ms. Clinton, try here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/04/the-shape-of-things-to-come-in-2016/
Thanks for the comment. I agree with you that a social justice movement must consist of more than just White “liberals.” However, there is simply no evidence I’ve ever seen of the “suspicious homogeneity” you reference (as a side note: while I certainly benefit from White privilege because of my skin color, I am actually multi-racial). As one simple counterexample, check out the #BernieOrBust hashtag; you’ll notice that tons of women are using it. In fact, when you look at people who don’t vote (another aside: I will be voting; I just won’t be voting for Hillary Clinton), you’ll also find that they are predominantly members of less advantaged groups (see http://www.demos.org/publication/why-voting-matters-large-disparities-turnout-benefit-donor-class & https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2014/11/06/100627/why-young-minority-and-low-income-citizens-dont-vote/, for example). Part of the reason for that is restrictive voting laws, which are partially the fault of modern Republicans (only partially, as they have been a consistent part of our country’s history; this is an important point that I’ll return to in a moment), but part of it is likely also due to the fact that the policy preferences of these groups are frequently ignored by politicians of both parties, and many people within them feel, very fairly, that electoral politics make little difference.
Don’t forget that mass incarceration, the increase in deep poverty due to welfare reform, and the federal prohibition against gay marriage, to name a few outcomes that were horrible for some of the groups you mentioned, were all a result of Clinton-era policies. And don’t forget that Democrats and Republicans alike have perpetuated the voting restrictions mentioned above, or that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the murders of millions of innocent children around the world. Your questions about “tak[ing] responsibility” could just as easily be posed to you – should you be held accountable for the oppression that millions of people will almost certainly continue to face, with no end in sight, as a result of your lesser-of-two-evils voting? In my view, that’s not a particularly productive mindset, but it’s the logical conclusion of your reasoning.
I completely agree that we should work towards social justice issues in between elections, and I try to be the best ally of less privileged populations that I can be. In my view, that means I have to reject false electoral choices and fight for fundamental change. You’re absolutely right that White guys have a poor track record, and I’m hoping this is one way to help change that.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree with most of what you say here. But, it seems like you are sort of dancing around my particular critique by countering with adjacent/related issues, but not actually addressing what I am asking. And, that might be my fault in the way I wrote my response. So, let me try to point to a few examples where I think this allows you to sort of avoid the main question I asked.
So, yes, I agree that things like #BernieOrBust seem to have a fair number of women supporting it. However. that is not really the same group or argument that you so clearly argue here. I should also be clear, since it might have not come across earlier, I support Sanders over Clinton and sincerely know that he gets the nomination. Where I strongly disagree with you is the preemptive declaration of not voting for Clinton if she becomes the nominee. So, while #BernieOrBust does seem to garner a lot of support from women (albeit mostly white “not-poor” women from my perusal of Twitter), as you mention, it is not clear that the hashtag is arguing the absolute refusal of Clinton even if she unfortunately receives the democratic nomination. In fact, from what I can see by quickly skimming through the twitter stream, is that more of the tweets have no mention of not voting for Clinton. Given this, it seems that #BernieOrBust is more akin to saying, “I support Bernie over Hillary.” Which is the case for both of us. (As a response to your aside, I believe that I was specific in noting that you are only planning on boycotting Clinton, not boycotting the vote altogether, hence my comments on the Green Party.)
Following this, though, your answer veers away from addressing my specific critique by addressing the historical connection between Clinton and mass incarnation, democrats and restrictive voting rights, etc. While, I agree with all of those points, that is not what I am critiquing your argument for. We can certainly agree that historically democrats have a bad track record with voting rights, queer rights, and women’s rights. And, even now they are not as progressive as many of us would hope. However, this is where I really think your argument loses its mooring. Yes, these things have historical precedent, but even you admit that the GOP offers a much starker reality for many minorities, among whom I count myself and many of friends. And, yet, you choose to make an argument abut broader historical claims that projects progress for a better future over the objectively better outcomes for those most in need right now. This is why I am really insistent on the necessity of your argument coming from the poor, people of color, queers, and women/feminists. I don’t think you can honestly say that the likelihood of voting rights, access to reproductive health services, and job and housing protections for queer people, etc. becoming increasingly more restrictive will happen at nearly the same level under even Clinton’s administration. And to suggest other wise is frankly disingenuous. This is the reality regardless of Clinton’s past crimes. So, to take a retrospective look at Clinton and democrats as your reason to disregard the very real possibility of people who are much worse off than you being put into serious harm is sort of fucked up.
As far as your suggestion of flipping the question of responsibility on me as well, you make a false equivalence between our two arguments, particularly who is at risk. Of course I will take responsibility for the “oppression that millions of people will almost certainly continue to face” because I am one of those people. Whereas you are asserting that we stick to your principles at the risk of the wellbeing of a group of people that are decidedly not you. I can inherently take responsibility for my actions because my actions will affect me, whereas your will not affect you. They will sadly only affect the people who are already worse off than you. There is a big difference. Frankly, if you were to find people who are not relatively privileged on so many counts to lead the argument, it would make a lot more sense to me. However, I have a feeling that such an outcome is unlikely, for the very reasons I am bringing up. By offering a sort of obfuscating response when I critique your argument, you are in a way making my point. If you claim, as it seems you so, to work on behalf of the less privileged, where are their voices in the call to reject Hillary at all costs? This si what seems to be missing from your argument when you say “I try to be the best ally of less privileged populations that I can be. In my view, that means I have to reject false electoral choices and fight for fundamental change.” This is a well-trodden argument from the privileged Left activists claiming to work toward a better life for the less privileged, except that it often seems to reject what those very people have to say, in favor of making a universal statement about the power of principles.
For sure – thanks for the response. A few additional comments:
1) Glad we’ll both be voting for Bernie in the primary!
2) I know you noted that I might vote Green, but I wrote my aside just to reiterate that, as you also suggested later in the comment that I might “make [an] absolute [refusal] to vote.”
3) The #BernieOrBust hashtag was formed explicitly to convey the sentiment that those using it will pledge to write Bernie in if he loses the nomination (instead of voting for Hillary Clinton). See https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/.
4) I brought up Clinton’s past and bad policy enacted by the Democrats not just to point out the history, but also to point out – and this is the crucial piece of my argument – that I see it as a result of lesser-of-two-evils electoral strategy. I certainly agree that, in the *short term,* Clinton would be much better than any of the Republican candidates. However, I believe that, in the *long term,* the groups we care about will be worse off if we accept lesser-of-two-evils reasoning. I view the latter as more “serious harm,” though I recognize both that some may disagree and that there’s no clear right answer here.
5) I agree with you that the views/concerns/needs of those more directly affected by harmful policies matter more than mine when it comes to advocating for those groups’ interests. If people of color, women, and the queer community as a bloc were adamant that lesser-of-two-evils-ism was necessary, I wouldn’t endorse this strategy. However, that does not appear to be the case, and the evidence we do have (some of it linked above) suggests the opposite.
Thanks again for the comments. I think you make some very important points and that we actually don’t disagree about that much.
Opinions like this drive me crazy (and I’m with Bernie!). You have to have a lot of privilege to hold an opinion like this. I’m a gay Mexican immigrant. Without a Democrat in the White House my marriage will be annulled (the next president will nominate 2-4 Supreme Justices) and I will be deported. I don’t have the pretentious privilege of risking a Republican victory. My life, my family depend on a Democratic victory. But by all means, be a selfish ideologue and don’t vote for Hillary if she wins. The deportation, the death of thousands of people like me, the further destruction of woman’s rights, the even faster and deeper destruction of the economy, etc., etc., rests in the hands of entitled, privileged people like this writer.
With a Democrat in the White House, the US will continue unlawful Wars of Aggression, poverty-murdering ~30,000 human beings daily, and refusing to consider economic solutions counter to Big Bank interests.
So who’s being selfish, Marco?
Thanks for the comment (and glad you’re with Bernie!). Did you read the comments above, by any chance? I certainly respect your opinion and views on this issue, and recognize that I personally am very privileged; I will not feel the effects of the presidential election the way a lot of other people will.
That said, your assertion that disagreement makes someone a “selfish ideologue” is both incorrect and disappointing. Many people who are less privileged than you hold opinions similar to the one I expressed here, probably because they’ve suffered terribly under Democrats and Republicans alike. Barack Obama is deporting Central Americans right now and ordering drone strikes that kill scores of innocent Muslims, for example. Some people might feel like voting for someone who will perpetuate these abuses is an expression of privilege, especially if they believe (like I do), that the “destruction of the economy,” effects of aggressive war, and other injustices in America will continue longer if we continue to accept lesser-of-two-evils-ism as our only option.
Again, hopefully Bernie wins the primary and this issue is a moot point. I’d just encourage you to direct your anger more at the forces working against the policies we both support than at people who have a different approach to making those policies a reality.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama actually both made a version of this argument themselves recently (see http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-slams-bernie-sanders-guns-n493181).
Hi Marco, I recently challenged Ben’s argument for the same reasons you do here. I think you are right to be frustrated and skeptical of this sort of argument. I know I certainly am.
Ben, I’m curious when you say, “many people who are less privileged than you hold opinions similar to the one I expressed here, probably because they’ve suffered terribly under Democrats and Republicans alike,” who are you talking about? Because I specifically asked you about this claim numerous times, and you (and, frankly anyone I have encountered who argues a similar point of view) have yet to provide any actual proof to suggest that Marco and I, as well as the majority of “people who are less privileged” that I know. As I argued in our previous exchange, rather than actually addressing our legitimate critique of the boycott-Hillary argument, you pivot to argue the importance of a universal notion “economy” as more important than the specific people who are surely affected by a GOP overrun of the government. Again, this is not a new problem in certain privileged understandings of democratic-socialism. But, the argument that Marco and I, as well as most POC, queer, and feminist Marxists, level against you points out the incommensurability of developing an argument that is seemingly devoid of those who will be most adversely affected by its consequences. Put another way, “white” guys cannot be at the head of this argument if you expect people who are actually struggling to survive to take you seriously. What you are fundamentally proposing is another iteration of “revolutionary vanguardism,” suspiciously similar to Bob Avakian’s Revolutionary Communist Party, USA which has been roundly critiqued for its ignorance of race/gender/sexuality, etc. For instance, read Greg Jackson’s well known “Mythology of the White-Led ‘Vanguard’: A Critical Look at the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA” and you can discern some uncomfortably striking similarities between what you are arguing and what Bob Avakian has been espousing for decades now. This has been hashed and rehashed since the 70s regarding the blindness of arguments for so-called radical politics in the name of the other, and yet you guys can’t seem to get the people who are suffering the most on board. This is, and always has been, a problem. If there is something I am missing re: my question of who leads your argument, I welcome your insight. But, I have tried over and over to ask supporters of your methods to explain how it is that you can argue for a so-called better future while simultaneously throwing entire classes of people under the bus while you are left relatively unaffected, and yet there is no response.
Brandon, my last response to your comment directly addressed your question. See #3 and #5 specifically (which references the evidence on groups who don’t vote). As I’ve repeatedly noted, I agree that I am privileged, and I value your opinions on this topic. I disagree with some of them – I really do believe the false choice that you’re lending credence to has very harmful effects for other groups of people who are oppressed by the policies of many Democrats (my #4 above) – but I’ve sincerely tried to answer every question you’ve raised.
Ben, I’m not sure I would necessarily call your assertions #3 and #5 above answers to my question regarding why there is a plethora of white men leading the charge to not vote for Hillary even if Bernie does not win the nomination. Rather, you dance around the issue and point out other concerns, that I find useful and we agree on, but still seem to work really hard to not address the elephant in the room. Further, the links you provide are underwhelming since they cite no clear authors, which again avoids the central question I keep asking. Where are all of the POC, queers, and women/feminists leading your movement. And, pardon my glibness, but I do not consider a bunch of middle-class seeming white women on Twitter as particularly indicative of the “vast underclass” you keep invoking. Look, I am not expecting us to agree. We clearly will not on the specifics of this issue. (And, hopefully it will not come to needing to decide whether or not to vote GOP or Clinton.) However, you’re responses are essentially dancing around everything except answering the one question that really seems to matter. Why is your movement so white-male (and, seemingly hetero) centric? As I have argued, this is not primarily an issue of Clinton’s past policies. We agree on those issue, for sure. But, to suggest that large swaths of the population are equally hurt by those policies as specific minority communities will be under a GOP government is frankly a farce.
Further, I take a bit of umbrage with your position in your response #5. When you suggest that if “people of color, women, and the queer community as a bloc were adamant that lesser-of-two-evils-ism was necessary, I wouldn’t endorse this strategy,” I actually begin to question your relationship with these communities. Let me be clear. These are the communities with whom I interact most of the time, and to which I belong. So, pardon my irritation if I call bullshit on your assertion that these communities are not aware of the what is at risk if the necessity for choosing between Clinton and a GOP candidate arises. The vast majority of activists in these populations that I have come in contact with absolutely reject your assertions for exactly the reasons I have brought up. And, judging from Marco’s response here, I assume that he has a similar experience with these communities as well. As such, it is my inclination to suggest that you do a little more leg work regarding figuring out what these communities think about your assertion, and if they do agree with you as you keep insisting, then let them speak. Let them lead. It may be “unfair,” and it is certainly not an indication that your work is ill intentioned, but, ultimately, because of the violent history of privilege and human rights in the US, you cannot be the person to convincingly lead this campaign. And, until the people who keep telling everyone why they shouldn’t vote for Clinton, even if that means a Republican is elected, become less homogenous, there is realistically no convincing answer to my question. If this is your campaign, then it is incumbent upon you to engage those communities, as it seems like you simply aren’t doing it right now.
Also, I forgot to respond to the voter turnout info you supplied. While, yes, voter turnout in non-presidential election years is low (these studies specifically examined 2014 voting), particularly among minority voters, this is not the case in presidential election years, which is what we are discussing here. Further, in the last 2 presidential election cycles, the turnout of black voters was pretty high, from the info I have found. So, the studies you bring up a really a misdirect, a negative correlation even, in relation to what we are specifically discussing here.
Brandon, thanks again for the engagement on this issue, but what you’re calling a “misdirect” seems to me to just be evidence you don’t like. The studies I linked discuss midterm statistics, and you’re right that turnout is higher during presidential election years, but the same point applies in those years. 35% of Black voters and 46% of Hispanic non-voters said in 2008 that they stayed home at least in part because they “Didn’t like choices” in the election (see page 81: http://vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/Final%20report20090218.pdf).
This statement also doesn’t make sense: “But, to suggest that large swaths of the population are equally hurt by those policies as specific minority communities will be under a GOP government is frankly a farce.” I have pointed out groups of people – those who have been affected by mass incarceration and innocent Muslims who have been affected by aggressive war – for whom this is clearly the case. These groups don’t appear to be included in your “specific minority communities” heading.
All of that noted, I understand your point about White women who you perceive to be middle class, and that you think this argument would be more convincing if it were to come from people who have been more marginalized than I have. Your suggestion about doing more leg work is a good one, and I will take you up on it if the election ends poorly (in the meantime, let’s hope and work for a Bernie victory!).
Anyway, thanks again for the back-and-forth.
Well thought out and well written, Ben. I concur.
I want to agree with you, I really do. I weigh the risk of making that choice, and I would think you understand the risks. It’s comforting finding justification for your voting behavior by saying you’re simply making the necessary choice to send a message, but it doesn’t make it the right decision. The fact of the matter is that it’s easier to pressure this country into the right direction with Democratic leadership than Republican leadership. Your argument is hinged on the idea that the DNC wont listen and it’ll be more of the same. I’ve heard this from Bernie or Busters.
This is NOT a lesser of two evils decision. Half the party including young progressive voters have gotten Bernie’s message, and that seed of knowledge is not going to fade. If things don’t change do you think students with many thousands of dollars in student loan debt are going to just go away? How about all the young people making less money for longer work hours than their parents? Do you think these people are going to give up, even when they are made aware of how healthcare and college financial systems around the world work?
That sort of pressure is going to get a lot less done under a Republican president, and things can in fact get much worse and set us back much further.
To the few of us who think we can safely vote Green and not risk a Republican win, go for it I guess. I don’t know how to make that calculation. Green cannot win, and Republicans don’t vote Green. Think to yourself how much that vote is actually worth. Will it scare the Democratic Party into socialism? I don’t understand what the end game is here. You’re voting to feel good about yourself most of all.
bmesick86: you’re not yet confident that the Left arm engages in lie-started Wars of Aggression, a rigged casino in Wall Street led by the Big Banks, and crimes “covered” by corporate media?
Really? You don’t see it yet? Do you even know war law to contrast two crystal-clear treaties to US ongoing attacks in Orwellian violations?
If so, you might consider the obvious response: demand arrests and stop supporting an empire.
If not, vote for Hillary, hope for change or whatever bullshit she pitches, and receive your necessary further learning.
War law: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/03/clinton-bush-obama-stand-500-million-innocent-dead-intentional-policy-war-arrests-now.html
Thanks for the comment. While I appreciate where you are coming from, I strongly disagree about how voters who believe in power-balancing policy can best move the country in the right direction. As I argue in the piece above, I think Democrats are more likely to take those voters for granted if they know they have our almost unconditional support than they are to actually work for the causes we believe in. A third-party vote, in my view, is the best way to help disadvantaged populations in the long run.
Quoting bmesick86 April 22, 2016 at 3:17 am…
Each and every upcoming election
Which is more responsive to protests, twitter carping, etc – Greater Evil or Lesser Evil/Greater Good?
pressure is going to get a lot less done under a Republican president
A conservative president would have to be much better than non-conservative president to overcome the disadvantage of a conservative administration and
1. coordination with conservatives in Congress (whether majority or minority)
2. conservatives in precedent-setting courts, not only SCOTUS, coordinating filings with legal activists (as the Roberts court has)
3. coordinating with advertiser owned MSM and stinktanks (“supply-side rainbows and unicorns! shiny shiny free stuff! just sign over your legal rights!”).
My name is Le Murray. I grew up in Hot Springs, Arkansas. I will recount my encounter with her and let you decide. I was 10 and got to work in my family’s restaurant (Taco Pronto…now relocated down HWY 7 south) near Grand and Central in HS, AR. She came in like she was the Queen of the Universe, was extraordinarily RUDE and demanding and treated us all like peons. My grandfather called her father in law at the time (Dickie Kelly) and told him she was no longer welcome at Taco Pronto…..Dickie Kelly worked for a food service company and my grandfather wanted to cancel all accounts, Mr. Kelly (who was a pretty nice guy) told him that we would never have to deal with her again…..to salvage his friendship with my grandfather and the food service account. My grandfather agreed. It was a Hill Free Zone….Mz. Virginia, Roger and Dickie but no Hill. When she trotted out a young girl in that video the other night, I must say, I nearly threw up. Draw your own conclusions. But, pandering is pandering…and I will never vote for a woman that rude and condescending to ME, as an 10 year old kid, busing tables. Sorry, she lost my vote 36 years ago. Be kind. Be grateful.
The argument is simple — yet not so simplistic. Rather, it’s a matter of “Strategy and Resources” vs “Lesser of 2 Evils”. What do firefighters do? We would be ill advised to promote siphoning off valuable resources merely to turn our frowns upside down in order to “feel good” by voting Jill – No petulant pouting allowed. It’s an indulgence we can ill afford at this perilous point in history. The stakes are higher now than they were Bush v Gore; it’s the future of our planet. Rather the argument is for gathering limited resources and applying with strategic precision in order to preserve any hope for a future for generations to come. This is not the “lesser of 2 evils” argument – (that’s a devicive misnomer to minimize/trivialize a greater concern) it’s about the common/greater good. Statesmanship. Patriotism. Trust me, it’s a bitter pill since I loathe HRC/DNC – I am NOT “with her”. But as is Bernie – I’m a long-term, common cause, pragmatic, resourceful strategist.
That said, if there is a YUGE point spread between DEM & REP tickets by NOV 8 – If we are find ourselves positioned at “80 or 90% contained”, you better believe I will vote Jill.
I think the stakes are always high, that the “greater good” is best served by voting for Stein (even in a close election; Stein herself uses that phrase, by the way), and that we “can ill afford” letting Democrats who undermine the fight for social justice off the hook. But I also respect and appreciate your perspective; thanks for commenting!
I’ll let you in on something else as well. There has ALWAYS been “something” about HRC that has rankled me – that certain something that is ulterior and does not ring true. Call it feminine intuition or experience ( I just turned 66) I’ve never trusted her. There is no cause greater than her own self promotion that courses thru her.
Here’s the thing – I’m feeling that same level misgiving with “DR” (? What’s w the cred ?) Jill Stein…..can’t put my finger on it but it is undeniably there. The exact opposite is true of Bernie Sanders. And he says “it is not about me – it’s about us). He channels the selfless greater good. Not since Kennedy. not since MLK has there been a greater statesman – and if HE deems the best course of battle is via DNC (for now) then, by all that is good, that is where I am going. We stand united – divided we fall. 🤓🔥🇺🇸❤️
I agree with you about unity; here’s how I think about that :): https://34justice.com/2016/07/27/what-unity-should-mean/
Yes, stakes are always high – this year they are highest ever. No letting ANYONE off the hook – Rather, remain vigilant and diligent and Hold their feet to the fire. Change not only comes from the bottom up, it also takes time and repeated, concerted effort. Don’t let your passion fool you into believing that this is something new. Stand united.
Valerie: Hillary is a War Criminal, plain and simple. I’ll provide documentation, and please answer: are the wars she funded, spoke for, and in part administrated over as Secretary of State legal, or illegal Wars of Aggression?
Dear Carl, you are preaching to the choir. I am no Clinton sycophant. But please don’t let that curb your enthusiasm.