- Especially thanks to Sanders, Clinton may be forced to take more rational and progressive positions that will be harder for her to back off from later on.
- If past or new Clinton scandals take wing and she ends up in deep trouble, it will be important that voters are already familiar with the alternatives before it's too late.
Corrupt and dishonest as Hillary Clinton is, remember several things:
- Her Republican opponents are not only corrupt and dishonest, they are also dumb as well as cruel to large numbers of Americans.
- You are not just choosing a candidate you are choosing a battlefield. It's easier to fight Democrats than Republicans.
- You're not just electing a president, you're selecting a Supreme Court for perhaps decades in the future
7 comments:
"It's easier to fight Democrats than Republicans. "
Bill Clinton was able to force NAFTA after Democrats blocked GHW Bush from implementing it. Obama has received almost no criticism from the Democrat mainstream despite following all major Bush policies for the Banks, Wars, and Civil Liberties. Hillary would lurch further rightward and those who elected her will excuse her awfulness because she is "one of theirs" and The First Woman President(TM). I feel like if we have a lunkhead like Cruze in office we can at least have a good, clean fight without the cognitive dissonance.
"It's easier to fight Democrats than Republicans."
Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Did millions of Americans turn out in the streets to protest Obama's wars like they protested Bush's wars?
"You're not just electing a president, you're selecting a Supreme Court."
And rest assured that a corporatist, authoritarian Democrat will nominate corporatist authoritarian justices. D's and R's only disagree on social issues. So you can get gay married -- big whoopee doo.
A lesser evil is still evil. Sure, go vote for the lesser evil for the 5 minutes it takes to vote. But don't waste time or money supporting the lesser evil before or after you vote.
Things to remember, eh?
Here's something to remember, despite everything he said during the campaigns, Obama in the end reverted to form and in many ways became the worse alternative---as Glenn Ford from Black Agenda Reports often phrases it 'the more effective evil'. Hilary will be no different. She, of course, is prepared to say and promise anything now to get elected.
So, we resurrect the old Supreme Court Gambit, now?
Really? Does anyone actually believe she'll not select yet another corporate jurist? Her's will be more of the same, perhaps just a little softer around the edges on relatively insignificant social issues.
Want to actually fix the Supreme Court? Let's discuss impeachment.
Yes, that's also my conclusion.
In that regard, it's worth noting in that the current favorite and likely nominee for the Democratic Party nomination is Hillary Clinton, and for more than 20 years you've offered a critique of the Clintons that's as harsh and unsparing as anyone in political journalism (other than a few right-wing fabulists whose critique has typically been motivated more by their own partisan axe-grinding than a willingness to confront uncomfortable facts and relate them forthrightly.) Yet you understand what I've also gotten to learn- that American voters don't just elect a president; they elect a staff, advisors, appointees to powerful positions, budget priorities, and a stance toward wielding power, both hard and soft. Elections also function indirectly, to select for coalitions of supporters and adversaries. In terms of practical consequences, what's being voted on is a much a milieu as it is a ticket of candidates.
I've touted ranked-choice voting in national elections for over a decade- I think I first read about that ballot process here, lol- but it's plain that isn't in the cards for 2016. What is in the cards is a two-valued choice, between a Democrat and a Republican. And I share your reasoning for viewing a Democratic Party administration as the less worse choice for 1/2017-1/2021.
" Did millions of Americans turn out in the streets to protest Obama's wars like they protested Bush's wars?"
1) The primary responsibility for the policies a presidential administration inherits is always going to be with the administration that initiated them. And in no case is that more clear than it is with a war or military occupation.
2) It's practically impossible to simply order a fast unilateral exit from a an armed force commitment the size of those in Iraq and Afghanistan. As much as anyone might wish otherwise, this isn't a "rewind and reset" situation.
3) That said, Obama did follow through on withdrawing all American combat military forces from Iraq, in conjunction with the withdrawal already negotiated in the last months of the Bush administration in 2008, and as the result of the final decision in 2011 of an independent Iraqi government to the USA an enduring U.S. military commitment and a territorial base on Iraqi soil. So protesting "Obama's war" in Iraq wouldn't only have been a misnomer, it would have been pointless.
4) While Obama's initial action on the Afghanistan war- to intensify the US military presence there, with more combat troops- was in my opinion misbegotten, and probably more related to a perceived obligation to genuflect to internal Beltway politics than a well-considered strategy, he's been taking the U.S. in the direction of drawing down the U.S. military combat role and troop commitment for some time. The direction of American participation in the current Afghan conflict is clear (especially since the original pretext for action there- Osama bin Laden and the Afghan Arab-staffed Al Qaeda training camps- hasn't been a factor for years.) So there's no compelling need for a large protest movement in that regard, either. Especially since Obama is already being raked over the coals by knee-jerk militarists every time he makes a move away from "military solutions."
A final note, and I think this is crucial: experience has shown us that the most crucial time to pressure the leaders of our government to alter or retract a major policy initiative is BEFORE it's enacted, not afterward. This is especially true in the case of wars. Although binding multinational treaties, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, also hold special significance in that regard. Speaking of a policy measure that Obama really would own as his responsibility, if it gets enacted.
"if we have a lunkhead like Cruze"
which won't happen. I can't say for sure that the Republican nominee will be Jeb Bush (although if I had to bet on the 2016 Republican nominess today, I'd pick him.) But it won't be Cruz.
Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan. He owns Libya along with Hillary. Nobody forced them into that military solution, they did that themselves. That duo also owns the mess in Syria - it takes two to fight a civil war, and it could never have started or grown without US/Saudi support. That goes double for ISIS. As unpleasant as either party might be, both Assad and Gaddafi could be negotiated with without all the carnage and misery that has followed. Obama's "smarter wars" with a "lighter footprint" are what we have been witnessing. Empire by proxy - the logical extension of Bush's subcontracted invasion. There was lots of pressure on Obama to make peace before both elections - he even got a Nobel prize in advance. He just doesn't know the difference between making peace and reducing American combat casualties. Protest on the streets is what we have needed for 6 years. For the wars, for the no-fault banking bailouts, for expanding the surveillance state beyond even Bush, and yes - most definitely for the TPP.
I don't really think we'll get a President Cruze. But I genuinely believe that we will have more institutional resistance to the destructive rightward drift of our government if corporate Democrats like Obama and Hillary are sent packing. Then the fight is between the naked right and what's left. Then there could be a block on TPP, maybe even a new Church committee someday. I think worrying about the 2016 race is a waste of effort anyway - we will lose no matter who wins this one. We need to focus effort on grass roots organizing outside the party structure. That is the only real path forward.
Post a Comment