Progressives Should Support Hillary Clinton

Pro's Arguments 1. Drumpf is Dangerous I will not deny that the possibility of a Drumpf presidency frightens me, however, this is no reason progressives should compromise on their principles and fall behind the lesser evil. The pro supports his claim of the danger posed by Drumpf by citing an article by the Economist’s Global Forecasting Service. The danger posed by Drumpf in this analysis includes his “his hostile attitude to free trade”, the possibility he could “scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership” and his “vocal skepticism towards NATO”. While I do not contend that Drumpf is progressive, and I would even go as far as to call him a pseudo-fascist, these are where Drumpf takes a progressive view, even if for the wrong reasons. Progressives are opposed to free trade deals, and progressives like Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Margaret Flowers have been working hard to defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Progressives are also skeptical of NATO and many including, Noam Chomsky, have called it a threat to world peace [1]. Given that this is a debate among progressives, these are to be considered the few possible positives of a Drumpf administration. This does not excuse the Racism and Xenophobia of Mr. Drumpf, and his foreign policy and calls for a ban on Muslims are things progressives should genuinely fear, and are noted in the article cited by the Pro. The article still acknowledges, however, that a Drumpf presidency is unlikely, stating: “...we do not expect Mr. Drumpf to defeat...Hillary Clinton" Current polling is consistent with this conclusion, as right now, Clinton defeats Drumpf in all the latest polls and defeats him by a margin greater than the margin of error.[2] And when given the current predictions for the electoral college, Hillary Clinton only needs to win around 70 electoral votes to win, while Drumpf needs approximately 106 electoral votes, and in most Swing states, Clinton is soundly leading Drumpf [3]. The Pro finally concludes by saying that if Progressives rally behind Jill Stein “we risk having a repeat of 2000 when George W. Bush won Florida by less than 600 votes, thus giving Bush the presidency.” This is false, however, as the Florida issue was not caused by Progressives who chose to vote for Ralph Nader, it was caused by issues including voter roll purges, errors in the counting procedure, issues with the punch cards, and court interference. A study of the ballots by Florida State University came to the conclusion that Gore actually did win in Florida [4]. 2.Tipping Point Election The Pro cites the issue of the supreme court, however as we can see right now, with the current control of the Senate, it has been nearly impossible for President Obama to appoint someone, and it would be just as hard for Hillary Clinton unless the control of the Senate changes. Thus, the real issue at hand here is Senate races, not the Presidential one. And given the current polling favors Clinton by a wide Margin, there is a good deal of safety in terms of judicial appointments. The Pro also brings up the issue of the Affordable Care Act, yet this issue also has more to do with the control of the House and Senate than it does who is in the White House. Only Congress can repeal laws, the President cannot. 3. Hillary Clinton’s Progressive Credentials As this contention is similar to my first contention, I shall address this and the rebuttal together Responses 1. Clinton is not Progressive The Pro claims that I am contending that Clinton is not “sufficiently progressive”. This is a misrepresentation of my Argument, as I claim that Clinton is not progressive...period. I support this claim because Clinton’s actions are mutually exclusive to progressive values. One cannot support Neoliberal Trade Policies, a Militarist foreign policy and take corporate money and still claim to be progressive. The Pro cites several actions that Clinton took in the Senate to qualify Clinton as a progressive, but this does not excuse her record on important issues. You cannot be a vegan who loves steak, and so you cannot be progressive and reject progressive values. Clinton may have at one time snapped at her husband for embracing Neoliberalism, however since then she has gone on to embrace these policies herself. As Secretary of State, Clinton encouraged countries in Latin America to privatize state assets and undergo IMF-imposed structural adjustment programs[5,6]. The fact is that actions speak louder than words, and Clinton’s actions tell us what she really believes in. 2. Lesser of Two Evils The odds of any vote being the deciding vote in this election are approximately 1 in 16 Million, and only around 7 States will really be in play in this election. In most states the results have been, effectively, predetermined. As addressed earlier, Current polling has Clinton defeats Drumpf in all the latest polls and defeats him by a margin greater than the margin of error in nearly every poll. The risk of a spoiler is very unlikely, especially given many Anti-Drumpf Republicans are planning to vote for Gary Johnson. Furthermore, while every vote does count, voting is, sadly, a mostly symbolic act, and serves more as a way of expressing your views than actually picking a president. A vote in a Presidential election, or any election for that matter, is a way of expressing what policies you wish to see implemented. Thus by voting for the lesser evil, you are really voting against your interests. By supporting the lesser evil, we perpetuate the two-party system which has made change practically impossible. 3. Jill Stein represents the best opportunity to build and independent progressive movement The pro points out that Jill Stein and the Green Party have very limited influence in politics, however, this only shows why it is so important to support Jill Stein. In order to grow the influence that the Greens have in the US, progressives will need to organize and mobilize support for Jill Stein so that the Greens can achieve 5% or more in the general election. As I have previously mentioned, once a party receives 5% of the popular vote in a presidential election, that party is eligible to receive Federal matching funds for future elections. These matching funds would help the Green party grow and achieve greater electoral success. The pro contends that the Democrats represent the best vehicle for progressive change, however, the fact is that the Democratic Party has moved significantly to the right over the last 30 years. Numerous progressive challengers to the party establishment, like Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton were all shut down by the party leaders and we have seen this again withBernie Sanders. According to Noam Chomsky, the Democrats today are effectively moderate Republicans. The caveat is that the Republicans have moved so far to the right that political scientist Norman Ornstein has said that the GOP has become a “radical insurgency that doesn’t care about fact, doesn’t care about the argument, doesn’t want to participate in politics, and is simply off the spectrum.” [7] Because of this, it is clear progressives must build an independent movement, and the Greens represent the best vehicle for this. Sources [1] https://www.rt.com...; [2] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [3] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [4] http://rinr.fsu.edu... [5] https://www.thenation.com... [6] http://www.alternet.org...; [7] http://www.salon.com...