I’m With Jill

So, the core Clinton campaign message has devolved to “We can’t have Trump and not voting for me is a vote for Trump, so, you must vote for me”. But, I don’t. On the contrary, trump clintonI don’t think I want electing Hillary Clinton and her version of white supremacy on my head.  In the 2008 campaign, she co-signed a subtle but clear racism in her attempt to win the nomination, the most memorable examples being her surrogate, Bob Johnson, commenting that Bill Clinton was more of Black man than Barack Obama because he had slept with more Black women and her pressuring Obama to denounce both Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. She has argued Dr. King’s dream was realized with the passage of the Civil Rights Act,  made no attempt to apologize for her depiction of young black men as “super predators” and was an integral part of the team that has intensified The New Jim Crow.  As if this was not enough, Hillary Clinton has solidified American imperialism in Haiti by preventing an increase in minimum wage to .61 and her private server emails show she pressured Haitian officials to change results from the first round presidential elections in 2010. As Marian Wright Edelman stated in July of 2007, “You know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics.”

Following the 2000 election in which Nader received 2.75% of the popular vote, the Democratic Party blamed Al Gore’s inability to win an election on the 2.75% of Americans who chose to vote for the candidate they felt was most qualified and not their party’s platform or the Florida Supreme Court. Since that election, the Green Party has not received more than 1% of the popular vote (This year, Presidential candidates must receive an average of 15% across 5 polling bodies selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates is needed to gain entrance into national televised debates) which leads me to believe the Democratic Party’s argument that a third party is responsible for the Bush years has been successful.

My interests in this election are quite simple – it is about being a part of the long game to establish a legitimate third party that is a threat to win an election. I have conceded this election – Trump or Clinton – to me the difference is not enough that I in good faith would vote for either. I survived Bush, I survived Obama, I hope to survive Clinton or Trump – neither represents the radical change we need from the current status quo. Stein, like most “progressively left” candidates has shown limitations in her able to critique white supremacy, but she is in support of reparations, tuition-free public colleges, and the demilitarization of the police. This is a vision I will support. If we acknowledge a vote for Clinton or Trump is a vote for evil, why not invest in a third party? the evil is coming regardless.

 

9 thoughts on “I’m With Jill

  1. Nina Laing

    I agree, in a democracy one is called upon to participate and voting your conscious is no less valid than settling for a lesser evil. And, If third party votes in presidential elections were alone sufficient to establish a viable third then yes, that’s a way forward. However, I would guess it requires more sustained efforts at a local level to actually move that agenda along with any kind of velocity. I disagree that trump and Clinton are equivalent. To me that argument only holds in the realm intellectual absolutism. There will be ground level, life affecting, differences between the two administrations even if both fall far short of meeting our ideals and needs. Our individual survival is not an argument against the practical differences the policies of different administrations can make. As a first step in moving us forward I can understand a third party vote. However, a protest vote as a salve for one’s conscious may actually be the less ethical choice in this circumstance. Yet, votes have to be earned not guilted into existence so you’re right to exercise your vote in the manner that you believe best serves you and yours/ours.

    Reply
    1. kuferelaing Post author

      I do think local elections are important, right now the Presidental election is at the forefront, so why not start with the presidency and move to local, I don’t think one must come before the other. I do agree that on the ground level there will be difference, at the same time I think those differences are marginal enough that my personal survival doesn’t change. I also consider the lives of folks in Liyba, Haiti, and Honduras when thinking about what Clinton has done when considering survival. Clinton has a record, Trump has sound bites neither make me feel safe

      Reply
      1. Negus SugarcaneSlim (@CypressMoss)

        There’s so much I could debunk with the way you painted HRC, like the notion that she blocked the wage increase in Haiti with no reason. (Not just her, but the MAJORITY of the Obama administration did this to prevent manufacturers from leaving Haiti, which could have been worse for Haiti.) But what I would like to do is challenge your notion that rallying to vote a Green Party candidate into the highest office in the US is logical versus starting at the local level. Obviously, Jill Stein doesn’t have the bandwidth to be elected at a local level and/or her policy and beliefs don’t match what a significant portion of the American population believe in. I would respect the Green Party more if they actually took time to educate America on their policies and start with city council. I don’t understand how one can conclude that voting for someone like Jill, who has no political experience, isn’t the same as voting for Trump. They both don’t have any successful political experience. Clinton has the most experience from her work fighting discrimination in SC to her role as a Senator defending survivors of 9/11. Your protest vote is invalid because it doesn’t accomplish anything nor is it a better option to voting between two of the same evils. A candidate having faults doesn’t equate to voting between evils–that’s a gross comparison.

  2. Patrick Edmunds

    Kufere,

    I like your perspective. The only question I have: Is one demonstrably worse than the other? I get what you are saying, especially considering Hillary is about as right as a “Democrat” as possible. I guess I’m just trying to rationalize in my head that Hillary can’t possibly be THAT bad. However, needing to have that internal struggle obviously points out that she is. I agree this is the long game we are playing here and just have to hope that regardless, we deal with only one term and 2020 sees a true revolution. I do like all the insight you have provided here. Can you point me to more material to read up on that is not “mainstream” or even close to that

    Reply
  3. Chaka Brown Freeman

    I agree with you and Nina. My only contention is this, three possible supreme court justices carries far grester weight than either candidate. As a logistical issue, those justices will have an impact far far far greater than any afministration. As proof I offer up the impact that crap weasel Scalia had on our lives.

    Reply
    1. kuferelaing Post author

      I agree SC matters – especially with lifetime appointment and how precedents are established. My rebuttal is when is this not going to be important? In what election do we build the third party? SC comes up for each president – Obama, Bush, and Clinton each appointed at least one SCJ

      Reply
  4. kuferelaing Post author

    If there is so much you can debunk I invite you to do so. Regarding Haiti, what reason could you honestly give that is worth blocking people making .61 an hour? The idea that people making .61 an hour would hurt the country does not even make sense. The idea that you would respect the GP more if they educated more people on the local level I’m not sure adds up – because they do organize locally, but also why not simply educate yourself about them? My vote is not a protest vote, I’m voting for the candidate that I feel presents the best option for the country – if more people did that and didn’t buy into the idea that we HAVE to vote for a candidate then we wouldn’t have this conversation. I’m asking people to simply vote for someone who has a platform promoting things that folks have expressed wanting – the response of “oh no I can’t vote for that because they’ll lose” is one that doesn’t hold against the response “not if people actually voted for who they wanted to.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s