In Defense of Voting for Hillary on Principle
I’ve been thinking long and with a troubled hear about the points raised about Hillary and foreign policy.
Yes, she is more hawkish than I personally am comfortable with. As a long-time peace activist, I have deplored some of her decisions. For example, I was
angry that she joined the majority of senators voting to give Bush the authorization to invade Iraq. On the other hand, she not only has subsequently expressed regret for that vote, AT THE TIME she was one of a handful of those voting for the measure to stipulate that her support was contingent on two things: that Saddam continue to refuse to allow the weapons inspectors back in, and that the UN vote in support of an invasion to disarm him. Reading the speech she gave at the time (which I only did this fall) emphasizes that point. (She has further said that Condoleeza Rice personally assured her that if she voted for the resolution [which, Republican-written, did not actually include those two clauses], Bush would use the credible threat of American invasion to force Saddam to disarm but not actually proceed to invade unless Saddam refused and the international community agreed with the use of force.)
And I have to give her this, remembering back to what I understood and when I understood it, in the fall of 2002, when the fatal vote was taken, it was still fairly credible (to those who believed the administration’s cherry-picked evidence) that Saddam MIGHT have WMD and prove a threat to us. So her fundamental mistake was trusting Republicans not to lie to her and to the American people, at least never about matters of the gravest national security-not, I think, a mistake she will repeat.
And which, frankly, is at least somewhat permissible in someone of her generation, because it used to be the case that we (“we” being all Americans who actually thought about such matters) thought both that the lessons of Vietnam had been learned, and that whatever their flaws and their horrible and obstructionist stands on policies affecting our domestic well-being, Republicans at least cared enough about our military and our standing in the world not to risk either in a reckless war embarked upon under completely false premises.
And see, this is what younger people do not know: the GOP of my grandfather’s generation, of Hillary’s father’s generation, would not have. The GOP we both grew up with, could be trusted in national security matters no matter how serious our disagreements about matters domestic. (To be trusted, that is to say, not necessarily to make decisions we agree with, but to put the nation’s well-being above their party, and to try to make decisions based on evidence and analysis.) The GOP has changed, and very much for the worse; I don’t think Hillary will ever again blindly trust a GOP partisan to put country ahead of party, even where national security is involved.
Well, they have made it clear that they no longer do so, if they ever did: they have accepted as their nominee an impulsive ignoramus who is Putin’s dupe if not his plaything, and have put a grossly dangerous man in the way of receiving national security briefings and in the path to become our next commander-in-chief.
But the fact remains that Hillary remains more hawkish than I would like, more willing to consider the use of force or the threat of force to attain her foreign policy ends than I am comfortable with.
On the other hand, I am absolutely confident that Hillary is sane, measured, intelligent, good-intentioned, and capable of listening to others’ advice and opinions.
NONE of which can be said about Donald.
One might be concerned that she might intervene militarily in the Middle East, or against Russia. But if she does, she will do it upon sober consideration and in sincere belief that that intervention is the only or best way to secure stability.
Donald might be too big a fan of Russia to be at any risk of starting WWIII with his pal Vlad. But he might stand back and let Vlad start WWIII with Western Europe, by stepping back from NATO, or nuke a random country at 3 am, when his advisors are all abed, because its leader insulted him. If Donald as president ordered a nuclear missile launch against Venezuela, say, there would be something like four minutes for better counsel to try to get him to countermand the order. We cannot take the chance of that man becoming commander-in-chief.
The Green Candidate in 2000 knew he was a potential spoiler. He told his followers not to worry about that, that if voting for him DID result in Bush being elected over Gore, well, the two were so similar that it made no difference which got in. Indeed, it might be better if Bush were elected, since he would probably trigger a backlash that would grow the progressive movement, whereas Gore’s election might lead to complacency.
Well. Gore was elected in the popular vote, but Nader got enough votes in a few states, including, crucially, Florida, whose recount was halted to give Bush a 538-vote lead, to give the country to Bush. And Bush’s enthronement was not inconsequential to our country.
Al Gore would have started taking immediate action on global warming. He might have averted the 9-11 attacks, since he, unlike Georgie, would have taken seriously Bill Clinton’s advice that al-Qaeda was the most serious current international threat, and the desperate advice from the FBI that summer that al-Qaeda was plotting something major. He certainly would not have invaded Iraq.
Both establishment candidates were just the same, right, Ralph.
Most of Hillary’s domestic policies, if enacted would do clear and evident good for the American people. Donald’s economic policies would impoverish the nation to enrich himself (look at his tax plan). His other domestic policies would enshrine racism and misogyny, debase our national discourse, stifle the press and opposition opinion, destroy reproductive freedom (which will ultimately kill a number of poorer women-look at how Texas managed to turn its maternal death rate into that of a Third World Country), and tear apart families and communities. His policies, if enacted, would do clear and evident evil.
And one of those two will be our next president. Anything anyone does that makes it more likely that Trump be elected, is giving support to someone who IS evil and who INTENDS evil.
But even were this not true, even if, for example, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson had an actual shot at the Presidency, I would not support either of those candidates over Hillary. DESPITE my qualms about Hillary’s hawkishness.
Because there is one quality Hillary possesses, which is becoming, alas, increasingly rare among politicians, which I consider an absolute prerequisite for anyone holding a position as a public servant.
Especially for someone holding the single most powerful position in our country.
That they be grounded firmly in reality. That they be capable of distinguishing between their own fevered imagination or the preconceived answers mandated by their personal ideology, and see WHAT IS.
I went to the website Isidewith, and found that I agreed equally strongly overall with Hillary and Jill on various policy matters (though not, of course, on precisely the same issues in both cases). I did not then consider voting for Jill, for pragmatic reasons. But on looking at her further, I now would refuse to vote for Jill Stein ON PRINCIPLE.
Living in Seattle, I know many progressives whom I could and would call upon in a heartbeat to join me on the barricades should that prove necessary. Whose heart is in the right place, whose energy and commitment to the common good I trust absolutely.
But whose judgment I do not.
I know people who will believe any anti-corporate conspiracy theory presented to them, or at least any presented to them with plausible backing. Regardless of what the scientific evidence says.
Who believe, for instance, not that absolutely unrestrained use of GMO’s might lead to specific problems such as herbicide resistance or cause a troubling decrease in the earth’s bio-diversity, but that they are “Frankenfoods” which are destructive to human health to eat in even minuscule quantities and that ALL of them are innately detrimental to the biosphere. And that the scientists who object that there’s no evidence for this belief must clearly be in the pay of the multinationals.
Who believe that vaccines cause autism, years of debunking to the contrary.
(I work in the nursery business and I have an autistic nephew, so these two issues are ones I have researched. Since college I’ve been in the habit of looking at actual scientific publications, not journalists or opinion pieces, when I get interested in an issue of scientific controversy. But people who aren’t educated to do literature searches for themselves, still have a choice of consulting those placed to have an informed judgment, and if a policy-maker, should do so.)
Jill Stein has at least nodded to the anti-vaxxers in her stated positions, and opposes GMOs in all circumstances.
So maybe she’s taking those positions and several similar ones without believing them because they appeal to many of her base and she doesn’t want to alienate them.
In which case she is a conventional politician, utterly willing to mislead for political gain, and doesn’t deserve our vote as a “reform” candidate.
Or, maybe she believes them-in which case, she, a trained doctor, who ought to be able to evaluate scientific arguments (as many of my progressive friends who believe the like are NOT in a position to do), has adopted positions on questions of science NOT supported by the weight of scientific evidence. Believing left-wing anti-corporate propaganda over solid science. Unable to judge for herself, and listening to fellow progressives’ distrust rather than to scientists’ evidence ON ISSUES OF SCIENTIFIC FACT.
We have seen the huge harm done by the right’s adoption of anti-science; the delay in acting on global warming caused by the Republican Party’s blind embrace of climate change denial, has unquestionably made the future more precarious for us all. Or remember how Fox News viewers, in a poll shortly before they voted for Shrub’s second terms, answered FACTUAL questions about the Iraq War (Did the UN support it? Did Saddam turn out to have any WMD?) incorrectly. Making up their own reality, rejecting science and the very concept of evidence and objective truth.
The left’s adoption of anti-science, anti-evidence, is no less pernicious.
Hillary, whatever you think of her position on any given matter (and most of her domestic positions at least are very good), is reality-based. Which means she is always open to changing her mind if you present compelling new evidence to her.
She’s willing to change her mind on questions of fact: in the 1970’s, when James Hanson first started raising the alarm that human CO2 emissions might lead to global warming, she didn’t believe him. Now she does.
She’s willing to change her mind on questions of social justice: in the 1970’s, when she was fighting hard for racial equality and gender equality, she probably didn’t think that rights for queers were as important an issue as rights for women and racial minorities. Now she does.
She’s willing to change her mind on whether a given course of action is good based on whether it achieves its goals or has had horrific side-effects. Back in the 1990’s, when her husband (and many others) thought that crime and addiction could both be reduced by a “War on Drugs” with harsh mandatory sentences for drug offenses as well as violent crimes, she supported that approach. Now, seeing that the result has been a massive (and entirely disproportionate) incarceration of minorities, she does not.
And she’s willing to change her mind based on whether something is politically feasible. Back in the 1990’s, she fought her heart out for universal health care. And lost, badly. And turned around and fought for health care for at least many of our poorer children, which was achievable as UNIVERSAL care was not.
So if you’re worried Hillary Clinton might send out the bombers to Syria or something, elect her, and then persuade her that that would be the wrong thing to do.
Persuade her it’s morally indefensible. Persuade her it’s strategically a bad idea. Persuade her, even, that the political cost would be too high, that all the progressives would rise up against her if she did it.
She is amenable to persuasion on ANY of those grounds.
And that’s a good thing, the most important thing, in any potential President.
Donald Trump, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, believe what they choose to believe-in the latter cases, at least, based on ideology (Donald has no apparent consistent ideology except ME!!!!).
Hillary tries to make decisions based on reality.
And for that reason alone, even if the practical choice were not between a terrifyingly impulsive bully and would-be despot, and a seasoned, pragmatic, and good-hearted woman….
If the choice were between Stein and Clinton, or Johnson and Clinton, Hillary still would be preferable.
Because she, unlike they, will listen to reason when confronted with a reality that contradicts her ideology.
My two cents, or maybe a few more….
Yes, she is more hawkish than I personally am comfortable with. As a long-time peace activist, I have deplored some of her decisions. For example, I was
angry that she joined the majority of senators voting to give Bush the authorization to invade Iraq. On the other hand, she not only has subsequently expressed regret for that vote, AT THE TIME she was one of a handful of those voting for the measure to stipulate that her support was contingent on two things: that Saddam continue to refuse to allow the weapons inspectors back in, and that the UN vote in support of an invasion to disarm him. Reading the speech she gave at the time (which I only did this fall) emphasizes that point. (She has further said that Condoleeza Rice personally assured her that if she voted for the resolution [which, Republican-written, did not actually include those two clauses], Bush would use the credible threat of American invasion to force Saddam to disarm but not actually proceed to invade unless Saddam refused and the international community agreed with the use of force.)
And I have to give her this, remembering back to what I understood and when I understood it, in the fall of 2002, when the fatal vote was taken, it was still fairly credible (to those who believed the administration’s cherry-picked evidence) that Saddam MIGHT have WMD and prove a threat to us. So her fundamental mistake was trusting Republicans not to lie to her and to the American people, at least never about matters of the gravest national security-not, I think, a mistake she will repeat.
And which, frankly, is at least somewhat permissible in someone of her generation, because it used to be the case that we (“we” being all Americans who actually thought about such matters) thought both that the lessons of Vietnam had been learned, and that whatever their flaws and their horrible and obstructionist stands on policies affecting our domestic well-being, Republicans at least cared enough about our military and our standing in the world not to risk either in a reckless war embarked upon under completely false premises.
And see, this is what younger people do not know: the GOP of my grandfather’s generation, of Hillary’s father’s generation, would not have. The GOP we both grew up with, could be trusted in national security matters no matter how serious our disagreements about matters domestic. (To be trusted, that is to say, not necessarily to make decisions we agree with, but to put the nation’s well-being above their party, and to try to make decisions based on evidence and analysis.) The GOP has changed, and very much for the worse; I don’t think Hillary will ever again blindly trust a GOP partisan to put country ahead of party, even where national security is involved.
Well, they have made it clear that they no longer do so, if they ever did: they have accepted as their nominee an impulsive ignoramus who is Putin’s dupe if not his plaything, and have put a grossly dangerous man in the way of receiving national security briefings and in the path to become our next commander-in-chief.
But the fact remains that Hillary remains more hawkish than I would like, more willing to consider the use of force or the threat of force to attain her foreign policy ends than I am comfortable with.
On the other hand, I am absolutely confident that Hillary is sane, measured, intelligent, good-intentioned, and capable of listening to others’ advice and opinions.
NONE of which can be said about Donald.
One might be concerned that she might intervene militarily in the Middle East, or against Russia. But if she does, she will do it upon sober consideration and in sincere belief that that intervention is the only or best way to secure stability.
Donald might be too big a fan of Russia to be at any risk of starting WWIII with his pal Vlad. But he might stand back and let Vlad start WWIII with Western Europe, by stepping back from NATO, or nuke a random country at 3 am, when his advisors are all abed, because its leader insulted him. If Donald as president ordered a nuclear missile launch against Venezuela, say, there would be something like four minutes for better counsel to try to get him to countermand the order. We cannot take the chance of that man becoming commander-in-chief.
The Green Candidate in 2000 knew he was a potential spoiler. He told his followers not to worry about that, that if voting for him DID result in Bush being elected over Gore, well, the two were so similar that it made no difference which got in. Indeed, it might be better if Bush were elected, since he would probably trigger a backlash that would grow the progressive movement, whereas Gore’s election might lead to complacency.
Well. Gore was elected in the popular vote, but Nader got enough votes in a few states, including, crucially, Florida, whose recount was halted to give Bush a 538-vote lead, to give the country to Bush. And Bush’s enthronement was not inconsequential to our country.
Al Gore would have started taking immediate action on global warming. He might have averted the 9-11 attacks, since he, unlike Georgie, would have taken seriously Bill Clinton’s advice that al-Qaeda was the most serious current international threat, and the desperate advice from the FBI that summer that al-Qaeda was plotting something major. He certainly would not have invaded Iraq.
Both establishment candidates were just the same, right, Ralph.
Most of Hillary’s domestic policies, if enacted would do clear and evident good for the American people. Donald’s economic policies would impoverish the nation to enrich himself (look at his tax plan). His other domestic policies would enshrine racism and misogyny, debase our national discourse, stifle the press and opposition opinion, destroy reproductive freedom (which will ultimately kill a number of poorer women-look at how Texas managed to turn its maternal death rate into that of a Third World Country), and tear apart families and communities. His policies, if enacted, would do clear and evident evil.
And one of those two will be our next president. Anything anyone does that makes it more likely that Trump be elected, is giving support to someone who IS evil and who INTENDS evil.
But even were this not true, even if, for example, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson had an actual shot at the Presidency, I would not support either of those candidates over Hillary. DESPITE my qualms about Hillary’s hawkishness.
Because there is one quality Hillary possesses, which is becoming, alas, increasingly rare among politicians, which I consider an absolute prerequisite for anyone holding a position as a public servant.
Especially for someone holding the single most powerful position in our country.
That they be grounded firmly in reality. That they be capable of distinguishing between their own fevered imagination or the preconceived answers mandated by their personal ideology, and see WHAT IS.
I went to the website Isidewith, and found that I agreed equally strongly overall with Hillary and Jill on various policy matters (though not, of course, on precisely the same issues in both cases). I did not then consider voting for Jill, for pragmatic reasons. But on looking at her further, I now would refuse to vote for Jill Stein ON PRINCIPLE.
Living in Seattle, I know many progressives whom I could and would call upon in a heartbeat to join me on the barricades should that prove necessary. Whose heart is in the right place, whose energy and commitment to the common good I trust absolutely.
But whose judgment I do not.
I know people who will believe any anti-corporate conspiracy theory presented to them, or at least any presented to them with plausible backing. Regardless of what the scientific evidence says.
Who believe, for instance, not that absolutely unrestrained use of GMO’s might lead to specific problems such as herbicide resistance or cause a troubling decrease in the earth’s bio-diversity, but that they are “Frankenfoods” which are destructive to human health to eat in even minuscule quantities and that ALL of them are innately detrimental to the biosphere. And that the scientists who object that there’s no evidence for this belief must clearly be in the pay of the multinationals.
Who believe that vaccines cause autism, years of debunking to the contrary.
(I work in the nursery business and I have an autistic nephew, so these two issues are ones I have researched. Since college I’ve been in the habit of looking at actual scientific publications, not journalists or opinion pieces, when I get interested in an issue of scientific controversy. But people who aren’t educated to do literature searches for themselves, still have a choice of consulting those placed to have an informed judgment, and if a policy-maker, should do so.)
Jill Stein has at least nodded to the anti-vaxxers in her stated positions, and opposes GMOs in all circumstances.
So maybe she’s taking those positions and several similar ones without believing them because they appeal to many of her base and she doesn’t want to alienate them.
In which case she is a conventional politician, utterly willing to mislead for political gain, and doesn’t deserve our vote as a “reform” candidate.
Or, maybe she believes them-in which case, she, a trained doctor, who ought to be able to evaluate scientific arguments (as many of my progressive friends who believe the like are NOT in a position to do), has adopted positions on questions of science NOT supported by the weight of scientific evidence. Believing left-wing anti-corporate propaganda over solid science. Unable to judge for herself, and listening to fellow progressives’ distrust rather than to scientists’ evidence ON ISSUES OF SCIENTIFIC FACT.
We have seen the huge harm done by the right’s adoption of anti-science; the delay in acting on global warming caused by the Republican Party’s blind embrace of climate change denial, has unquestionably made the future more precarious for us all. Or remember how Fox News viewers, in a poll shortly before they voted for Shrub’s second terms, answered FACTUAL questions about the Iraq War (Did the UN support it? Did Saddam turn out to have any WMD?) incorrectly. Making up their own reality, rejecting science and the very concept of evidence and objective truth.
The left’s adoption of anti-science, anti-evidence, is no less pernicious.
Hillary, whatever you think of her position on any given matter (and most of her domestic positions at least are very good), is reality-based. Which means she is always open to changing her mind if you present compelling new evidence to her.
She’s willing to change her mind on questions of fact: in the 1970’s, when James Hanson first started raising the alarm that human CO2 emissions might lead to global warming, she didn’t believe him. Now she does.
She’s willing to change her mind on questions of social justice: in the 1970’s, when she was fighting hard for racial equality and gender equality, she probably didn’t think that rights for queers were as important an issue as rights for women and racial minorities. Now she does.
She’s willing to change her mind on whether a given course of action is good based on whether it achieves its goals or has had horrific side-effects. Back in the 1990’s, when her husband (and many others) thought that crime and addiction could both be reduced by a “War on Drugs” with harsh mandatory sentences for drug offenses as well as violent crimes, she supported that approach. Now, seeing that the result has been a massive (and entirely disproportionate) incarceration of minorities, she does not.
And she’s willing to change her mind based on whether something is politically feasible. Back in the 1990’s, she fought her heart out for universal health care. And lost, badly. And turned around and fought for health care for at least many of our poorer children, which was achievable as UNIVERSAL care was not.
So if you’re worried Hillary Clinton might send out the bombers to Syria or something, elect her, and then persuade her that that would be the wrong thing to do.
Persuade her it’s morally indefensible. Persuade her it’s strategically a bad idea. Persuade her, even, that the political cost would be too high, that all the progressives would rise up against her if she did it.
She is amenable to persuasion on ANY of those grounds.
And that’s a good thing, the most important thing, in any potential President.
Donald Trump, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, believe what they choose to believe-in the latter cases, at least, based on ideology (Donald has no apparent consistent ideology except ME!!!!).
Hillary tries to make decisions based on reality.
And for that reason alone, even if the practical choice were not between a terrifyingly impulsive bully and would-be despot, and a seasoned, pragmatic, and good-hearted woman….
If the choice were between Stein and Clinton, or Johnson and Clinton, Hillary still would be preferable.
Because she, unlike they, will listen to reason when confronted with a reality that contradicts her ideology.
My two cents, or maybe a few more….