Let’s talk about the dumbest “political” question I have ever been asked in my life.
I was asked this on Twitter yesterday. I made the observation that every progressive in the country must be absolutely four-square pro-Hillary by now because the fate of the country is at stake. And their response was the following question:
“Why vote for a candidate that I have ideological differences with? esp when I don’t live in a battleground state?”
And this is someone who claims they are proudly progressive. Not just that, but according to his Twitter profile, he’s a Ph.D. Candidate in political science. Scary stupid should disqualify him from being called “Doctor” of anything. Proof that education alone doesn’t make one smarter than others. It also points up the absurdity of the purity approach of the unicorn progressive political class. I mean, is there anyone running for any political office with whom you have zero political differences? Really?
We don’t live in a utopia. I can’t believe I have to write this out loud, but there apparently sentient beings who don’t understand this. There are four national candidates for president right now. Let’s look at them, shall we?
- We have Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, who is essentialy a Republican who smokes pot and it anti-war to a fault. At the heart of the Libertarian ideology is a belief that government can do nothing right, so they are hell-bent on making sure government does as little as possible. Of course, he has less than a snowball’s chance in hell of winning even one electoral vote, so it doesn’t matter what he says he will do.
Likewise, we have Jill Stein, who can’t get elected dog catcher, let alone president. She has adopted every cliche “progressive” policy position possible in a vain attempt to attact the staunchest Bernie Stans to her side because no one else in their right minds would support her. She’s an anti-vaccine doctor and she has no political experience to speak of, so there is no way to know if she would do any of the utopian things that someone placed into the Green Party “platform.” Most of the shit she’s promising is largely impossible to do. Not that it matters, anyway, since she has less chance than Gary Johnson of getting even one electoral vote. That means, like Johnson, she can say anything because she’ll never have to do any of it.
Once again, neither of these two candidates have any chance of becoming president. That means, any claims of kinship to them, ideologically speaking, makes you little more than gullible. I mean, what do call someone who tells you exactly what you want to hear in order to get something from you? Grifter? Con Man? And I know some of you have convinced yourselves that you “send a message” when you vote for someone who says what you want to hear, but for God’s sake, when are you going to get a clue? You only “send a message” when you WIN. No one who loses has ever “sent a message” to anyone.
Now, there are two candidates who have a chance of winning.
- One is Donald Trump. Donald Trump’s main support comes from white nationalists and xenophobes. His entire campaign revolves around building a wall to keep people out and to throw out or ban people white racists don’t like from coming to the United States. His entire life has been a long con designed to make himself money. There is no evidence that Trump has ever done anything for anyone without the last name of Trump. His entire campaign has been built around saying things designed to get him votes from the most deplorable people in the country. Not only is he not progressive, but everything he stands for in this campaign is pretty much anti-progressive. It’s difficult to think of any politician that is less ideologically progressive. Not only that, but he represents a political party that is as anti-progressive as any political party in our history.
- The other candidate who has a chance of winning is Hillary Clinton. Since she was in college, Hillary Clinton has worked hard for the underdog. She has been into civil rights and women’s rights sine the late 1960s. She has fought to protect children for more than 40 years. She and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have worked their entire adult lives in public service. When he left the presidency, Bill could have gotten millions of dollars a year to do little more than give speeches and write books. Given her success as First Lady, Hillary could have done much the same. She could have retired to an estate and collected speaking and book fees and made tens of millions. Instead, she ran for the Senate in New York and spent eight years doing everything she could for the people of that state. She worked her ass off for the first responders who saved lives on 9/11 and she also worker her ass off to make sure that children had health care and that people had the right to take care of their families. This year along, she is the only candidate among the four who went to Flint without a cadre of press following her, and talked about what she could do to help them. This is a woman who is highly qualified, highly motivated to help people, with a long record of helping people throughout her life.
Okay, so there you have it. Four candidates. Is this choice really that hard? You have two people with zero chance of winning who say all of the right things, but who have little or no record to check on. Then you have a Republican candidate who is completely unqualified, has no principles and who is going wherever the votes are, even if they’re with the white supremacist class. On the other hand, you have a Democratic candidate, in Hillary Clinton, who has a massive amount of experience, a lot of intelligence, who understands what is going on and who has a stellar record of public service that goes back a half-century.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if you like her personally. We’re not electing the Homecoming king or queen, we’re electing a president. If you don’t understand why voting Hillary Clinton is essential right now, stop pretending you know dick about politics. And it doesn’t matter where you live, either. There are only about 15 states that are absolutely red or blue. In an election like this one, a lot of states you assume will be red may turn blue, as long as we make the effort. Even a state like Texas is in play this year. How the hell are you going to feel if your beloved Jill Stein gets 20,000 votes in Texas, and Hillary loses by 5,000? Look at this electoral map from 2000.
If only one of those states in red had turned blue, even New Hampshire or Ohio, there never would have been a President Bush, which means it’s possible there would have been no 9/11, and there would have been no $3 trillion wars, or ISIL. Always assume that your vote counts and always use your vote in a way that matters to everyone and not just your ego. Stop voting your ego, especially if you think you’re “progressive.” Liberalism is about the greater good, not getting your own way.
Grow up. If you think your progressive and you can’t figure out that Hillary is an excellent candidate, then you’re just a huge ball of ego.