Progressives Should Support Hillary Clinton

-- Con's case --1. Clinton is not a progressiveIn my opening round, I laid out a pretty good case as to why Clinton is, and should be considered, a progressive. Con argues strictly from apostasy, namely, that Clinton isn't sufficiently progressive for progressives to support. Con picks what he believes to be determining issues, finds Clinton to be impure, and thus we should not support Clinton. Although I do believe there are problems in her record, it certainly pales in comparison to her firm progressive record and getting things accomplished. Sady Dole notes [1]:"Clinton believes that you need to be in the system in order to change the system, and I think that is true. Clinton’s path has given her tremendous impact, and in many ways, her politics—left sympathies combined with a survivor’s instinct for using the system, and a lawyer’s love of the fine detail—are reminiscent of Obama’s. While leftists have critiques of Obama, too, I think he’s been the best president in my lifetime, which started with Reagan. I also remember that second Bush a little too well to ever believe that the two parties are “basically the same” (though I have been told this many times). When I hear claims about Hillary Clinton, the money-grubbing shill for Wall Street who thinks just like a Republican, I don’t recognize the woman who once snapped at her husband for not fighting hard enough for universal healthcare, telling him, “You didn't get elected to do Wall Street economics. ” Similarly, I see no shifty dishonesty in the Hillary Clinton who, in 2005, pushed for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Bush administration’s failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and who today is the woman making the administrative negligence in Flint, Mich. , central to her campaign. .. .And the Hillary Clinton who is “Republican lite,” “more like Reagan than FDR” and “to the right of Nixon” does not seem remotely the same Clinton whose votes aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 93 percent of the time during the two years they overlapped in the Senate. They famously parted ways on the 2002 decision to authorize the war in Iraq—a vote that Clinton acknowledges was a mistake. .. .So, yes. There are problems with her record, and I recognize them. I could also criticize Sanders. I could go on about, for instance, his tendency to bring every single question back to economic inequality (an outdated, single-axis analysis that, as Andrea Plaid noted in these pages, is as myopic as #whitefeminists trying to make everything “all about gender”). But I won’t. I want to talk about the woman who has survived 25 years of misogynist hatred and GOP attacks, and came out unbroken and unbowed. "2. Lesser of two evils. Let's concede for a moment that voting for Hillary is simply a vote for the lesser of two evils. I would contend that we should still support her and help her to win. Julia Maskivker notes [2]: If our vote is part of a set of votes that will contribute to the defeat of the realistically electable “lesser evil,” therefore electing the “more evil” candidate, then we force society to pay a high price for our clean conscience. Sometimes, our concern for feeling morally impeccable should give way to a concern for what type of society we can help to create for the sake of all, including ourselves. If we have a duty of aid toward society, our duty becomes even more stringent when there are real prospects that a scarily unpredictable leader would take power, a candidate who, if elected, could harm society. Under such circumstances, the duty to vote for the lesser evil would be a very serious one. We cannot expect others to act on society’s behalf if we will not do so ourselves. Thus, voting for the lesser evil is not a lesser action. Morally, it is the right thing to do. If voting for Stein ushers in a Trump presidency, the harm that will befall Americans would be far greater than that if Clinton were to be elected. Facism must be soundly rejected and we cannot risk having a greater evil befall on the United States because we view Clinton as impure. Regardless, I reject the claim that Clinton is the lesser of two evils. Clinton represents the best choice to win and the best chance to move progressive values forward. Furthermore, I do not believe that Clinton is evil of a "Republican lite. " For Con's claim to stand, he would need to show how Clinton is evil. 3. Jill Stein represents the best opportunity to build and independent progressive movementThe Green Party and Jill Stein do not have much influence in politics. Currently, Stein is on the ballot in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D. C. , Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These states make up only 296 electoral votes [3]. By contrast, in 2012, they only received 0.36 of the popular vote [4]. I believe, as Clinton does, that in order to change the system, we have to be in the system. The Democratic Party best represents progressives and should serve as the vehicle for progressive change. Sources1. . http://inthesetimes.com...;2. . https://www.washingtonpost.com...;3. . http://www.gp.org...;4. . http://www.fec.gov...;