Thursday, January 14, 2016

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. I reject the "lesser of two evils" argument.

I believe that Hillary Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street, a lacky by any definition. I also believe that she is, as Ralph Nader says, a poster child for the military industrial complex. I also don't like her close ties to agribusiness giant Monsanto and her advocacy for the industry's genetically modified crops.

I believe that our two party system is broken, almost never giving us a choice that matches the preferences of the electorate. Corporate news corporations favor Clinton over Bernie Sanders in subtle and unfair ways, basing so much of their slanted (as directed to the financial interests of the network owners) discussion in terms assuming Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate and pushing the false narrative that Bernie Sanders has no chance of winning the general election.

Some of my friends who are Democrats believe that it is a mistake to not vote for whatever Democratic toadie the establishment runs. What if a Republican wins? Oh NOoos! The sky will fall.

I believe that the sky will fall on our representative democracy if people don't stand up to the political establishment and the corporations that their preferred candidates represent.

2 comments:

Béla Pátkai said...

It's refreshing to hear from someone with integrity. We have similar issues in European countries, where my friends told me I _have to_ vote "strategically", otherwise my vote is lost. I voted for a small party with almost no chance to get into parliament and I think I gave 1 vote of hope to somebody in the future considering a new movement, party, and looking at the numbers.

netsettler said...

I'm mixed on this and reconsidering indeed whether I'll vote for Hillary if she's the Democratic choice. I don't think she's strong enough on Climate in particular. I don't think she gets it. She is lukewarm. Light years ahead of the GOP, but that's damnation with faint praise. Survival of the human race will not be graded on the curve and her sense of urgency is not enough to save us. Maybe Bernie's isn't either, but it's the best realistic choice. Still, the reason to vote for her might be this, even if her positions on most things aren't much different than, say, Jeb's: If a Democrat is elected, they will probably rubberstamp Democratic stuff out of the Senate. If a Republican is elected, they will rubberstamp Republican stuff. That means the losing party has a supermajority requirement to pass legislation, and the winning party only a regular majority. That's a big deal even independent of the biases of the person unless it's a candidate prepared to challenge their party. (That might make Rand Paul a good choice, by the way. He'd probably oppose about 50% of Republican offerings, which would be better than nothing. Hard to tell about Trump, but what he might offer in terms of rejected legislation he'll lose back in capricious use of executive privilege.) And the Supreme Court sadly hangs in the balance, subject to the same majority/supermajority skew. These things do matter, even as Hillary is a subpar offering for the Democrats to field.