Okay, so I’m looking at my Facebook feed this morning and I am confronted with an epic 3400-word screed about how Hillary Clinton is, well, a “Republican.” Really. The entire article was so clueless, I felt compelled to use it as an example of why we progressives lose and hand the government to right-wing slime.
The article is provocatively (and stupidly) titled, “More like Reagan than FDR: I’m a millennial and I’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton.” The cluelessness of the article is actually explained by the first paragraph, which reads as follows:
I am a 27-year-old, politically active, progressive millennial voter. I am a political junkie; my background is political science and American history. However, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination (a big “if”), I will likely not vote for her, and will instead write in “Bernie Sanders” … and I encourage my readers to do so as well.
Sorry, but if you claim to have a background in political science and American history and you’re a “political junkie” and your advice is to “write in” a guy who couldn’t even get enough votes to win the Democratic nomination, you didn’t learn very much from all your “studies.” Write-in candidates virtually never win, and they pretty much literally can’t win a presidential election, since they don’t have electors. In telling people to write in Bernie Sanders, assuming he doesn’t win the nomination, is essentially telling people to flush their vote down the toilet.
It’s also not progressive.
This is the problem with PUBs (Progressive Unicorn Brigade). They think they’re acting as advocates for the “greater good,” but the fact of the matter is, it’s all about ego. If you’re not making sure that either the best candidate wins or (just as importantly) the most vile candidate loses, you’re not being progressive at all. Having all the right positions on issues does not make anyone progressive. I really question the bona fides of all these self-described “progressives” who don’t have the slightest idea how politics works or who don’t realize that we’ve been losing for the better part of a half-century. I know they hate it when I say they’re wasting their vote for casting it for someone who can’t win, but what the hell else do you call it?
There are two viable political parties in this country, period. There is not now and never will there be a smorgasbord of political choices, and the reason is basic math. I challenge anyone to name a democratic country with more than two dominant parties. You can’t, because it’s basic math. Yes, there are parliamentary systems that have representatives from multiple parties, but in order to be effective, they still have to have a president or prime minister, unless one of the major parties agrees to it. Do you realize there are 134 nationally recognized political parties in this country? Ask the leaders of any of them what it’s like to be a “third party” in the U.S. The concept of three major parties is the equivalent of a unicorn that farts lavender glitter; it sounds good, but it’s not real. If you have three relatively equal parties, there will essentially be one-party rule.
Getting back to this article, first this idiot complains about the usual garbage; the DNC and its strategy of fewer debates than the GOP (which, by the way, is doing a lot to highlight the Democratic Party as the party of adults, so there’s that) and he uses the rationale that the Republican debates had bigger audiences, which is the dumbest possible line of reasoning. Which do you imagine is better for a political party’s reputation, really? An audience of 10 million people watching your candidates talk about issues people actually care about, or 25 million people watching the other party’s candidates perform the political equivalent of donkey fellatio? Let’s be clear; no one whose vote matters watches primary debates to decide who to vote for, anyway, especially when they happen six months or more before their state’s primary. People will begin to engage a few weeks before they vote and not before.
As bad as this article starts, though, it’s when he starts “getting specific” about Hillary Clinton when the article becomes disgusting, sexist and chock full of unicorn shit. Like this one:
1) Hillary’s personality repels me (and many others).
I find Clinton to be disingenuous; a political insider, an opportunist who will say anything to win — and I’m not the only one. Polls consistently indicate higher unfavorable views of her than positive. Even though her positive numbers are higher than the other candidates’, she has negative ratio (which Bernie does not).
First of all, the use of the term “political insider and opportunist” cracks me up. I love Bernie Sanders, but he’s spent 25 years in Congress, so he is also a “political insider,” regardless of how much you like him personally. And look at how he and his follower pimp the size of the crowds he draws and the vigor with which he appropriates the professional left’s rhetoric; that’s an opportunist. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. Politicians, by definition, are opportunists and, once they are elected, they are insiders; that’s how they become valuable. And let’s be clear about something; if one would bother to actually examine the polls instead of glossing over them, they would find that the reason Hillary Clinton has more negatives is because she has nearly 100% name recognition, whereas half of Democratic voters don’t know who Bernie Sanders is.
As the author continues his Hillary slamming, he goes through the usual bullshit. He claims her “top donors” are Wall Street firms, which is mostly untrue and even if it was, her biggest “Wall Street” donations are DWARFED by donations to Republicans, so he’s essentially advocating for her to lose to Republicans who would give everyone on “Wall Street” hand jobs if that’s what they wanted. He also whines about her changed views on TPP and gay marriage, as if changing views was itself a major weakness. Then he whines because he’s offended because she mentions that she would be the first woman president. He actually said,
Does she really think that gender is a substitute for policy positions in a Democratic primary? I am a feminist, but I’m not going to support someone just because she is a woman. I guess you could say I’m waiting for the right woman to be president, and frankly, Hillary isn’t that woman.
If you don’t see the irony in the above, you’re a PUB. Consider; here’s a MAN deciding unilaterally that he can’t support the choice of a majority of Democratic voters because she doesn’t meet HIS standards of what the “first woman president” should be? If she gets the nomination, she’ll be the best candidate in the race and she’ll be the “first woman president” if she wins. It is that simple. Of course, then he gets more ridiculous:
2) On foreign policy, Clinton is a neoconservative.
Hillary Clinton’s so-called solution to ISIS is jingoism at its finest: pursuing ISIS “across the Middle East” and ramping up airstrikes. Many Democrats and pundits call her the “responsible choice” due to her experience. I challenge this assessment.
He then demonstrates how little he knows about what’s actually going on in the Middle East, but that’s nothing compared to how little he knows about how his own country works. She describes her approach to Daesh (ISIL) as “remarkably similar to that of George W. Bush with al-Qaida,” which is remarkable in its stupidity. And if he thinks Hillary is a neocon on anything, he is remarkably naïve, a theme he repeats with his subsequent subheading:
3) On domestic policy, Clinton is basically a moderate Republican.
Besides the reality that there are no “moderate” Republicans anymore and that no one in the GOP aligns with anything Clinton’s campaign stands for, his attempts to support this nonsense is labored, to put it mildly. He lies about her record on welfare and corporate welfare, but his greatest bit of silliness is the following, on the minimum wage:
Another policy initiative of Hillary’s I take issue with is her reluctance to support a gradual increase to $15 minimum wage. Instead she stays with $12. In defending her position and attacking those of her fellow Democrats, Hillary again echoes Republican arguments: it will cost jobs; it is too much too fast.
At worst, this is a minor disagreement and her reasons for limiting the increase to $12 are actually valid. To match the minimum wage for 1968, it should be $10.97 in 1996, so $12 is still higher than that. And let’s be real; I’d like him to name a single “moderate Republican” who has recommended raising the minimum wage to even $10, let alone $12. You may recall that Democrats have repeatedly tried to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 and Republicans have KILLED any and all attempts.
And look at the way he seems to take issue with Hillary Clinton because of things her husband did as president, which is a bit patronizing, frankly, especially for a so-called “progressive.” But his final subheader takes the cake:
4) Choosing Hillary threatens the future of the Democratic Party.
Hate to break it to them, but people like this asshole are far more threatening to the future of the Democratic Party and I have proof in the 2010 and 2014 elections.
As long as so many progressives keep trying to find the perfect candidate, which has never existed, we keep losing ground. Get a clue.
If Bernie wins, support him.
If Hillary wins, support her.
BOTH of them are far better than anyone the GOP will offer. Period.