Part One of Two
There is a common view that Hillary Clinton is the “lesser of the two evils” between herself and Donald Trump in the race to be President of the United States.
It might or might not be true. A lesser evil is still an ‘evil.’ If you vote for Hillary Clinton, then you are voting on her political record. You are voting for her policies.
Your vote for Clinton is a direct endorsement of her years in political office. You are voting for the continuity of the old.
Is there any moral/ethical justification for giving her your vote?
Has she said anything to show she has had any enlightened moments to indicate a radical change in her views and policies?
If you vote for Hillary Clinton, then here are some bullet points, so that you know who you are voting for.
Before you cast a vote remember to check her track record as US Secretary of State, New York Senator and a co-founder of the Clinton Foundation:
- Hilary Clinton has supported the US wars on 14 Muslim countries in the past generation, backed US military squads, failed to address US war crimes, drone attacks on towns/villages and made threats to” totally obliterate Iran.” She supports US arm sales, extremist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, and welcomes planned assassinations of those who threaten US interests.
- Clinton supported the massive public financial bail out of taxpayers money for corrupt US banks estimated between $700 billion and $3.7 trillion.
- Clinton took no steps to stop the massive tax avoidance in the US of $100s billion and more than S1trilllion in corporate off shore tax havens. This money could support the poor, the sick, mental health issues, public service, job creation and environmental renewal.
- Ignored a persistent decline in the democratic process in the US as the numbers of poor, Afro-Americans, Muslims, Mexicans and poor white people have shown less and less interest to vote. Many know their vote is a wasted vote. And they are right. Vote in the 2012 US election was 53% while 47% did not bother to vote.
- Clinton has shown no willingness to campaign for Black Lives Matter, change violent police methods, set control on exploitive charges and debts heaped upon the sick from the medical industry, including Obamacare, and address the terminal decline of living standards for tens of millions in the US.
- As with President Obama, Clinton lacks principles and leadership when it comes addressing climate change, renewal energy, diminishing resources, over-population, exploitation of the poor, capital punishment fracking, legislation on gun control, a US epidemic of obesity, barbaric animal farms, junk food industry and people’s despair over their debts. These national and global issues have rarely got a mention in her campaign.
- Clinton has made $millions from her public speeches to corporations and banks, fails to address revelations about her emails exposed by WikiLeaks, displays secrecy in the FBI investigation into emails and seems bereft of principles.
Western democracy fails the people. Do not waste your vote on Hillary Clinton.
We need a new kind of democracy. We need to cultivate a non-party politics and engage in a fundamental change in party politics, written and unwriten constitutions. Our politicians, the policies and current democraies are not fit for purpose
We need to be bold, creative with a deep interest to support the lives of people and their environments everywhere for present and future generations
We need an inner and outer revolution to address the current crisis.
Clinton, 69 and Trump, 70, belong to the past.
[reposted from FB thread]
Hi Christopher, I love and respect you as one of my teachers, and miss your Dharma. We agree on most political issues. But like many others in this thread, I take strong issue with your conclusion here. Agreeing with Kevin’s good points above, I think the differences between a parliamentary system such as you enjoy and our dysfunctional duopoly are many. Here, third parties do not get to form coalitions and govern, they really are only spoilers at the presidential level. Our ONLY choices here are between a socially moderate corporatist neoliberal hawk, and a nativist xenophobic demagogue. Our choice is between the same old flawed system, and American fascism, which would be worse. In a system like this, I believe that abstention and protest votes both are irresponsible.
While lots of folks here agree with my point, few are challenging you here on this being, as the tagline to your blog suggests, “A Buddhist Perspective.” Respectfully, I think the precept of Non-harming implies a different take on the morality of voting than you put forward. You cast voting as a personal moral stance, and if it were that, I would have to agree with your conclusions. But I strongly believe that in a system like this it is not. Voting here is a pragmatic and flawed method for communal choice-making, and to abstain from an uncomfortable moral choice because both options are unpalatable is irresponsible.
I believe as Buddhists we must be committed to Lessening Harm, not taking a stand for a fictional individual moral purity. To not vote for the lesser evil here is to give up resistance to a greater evil. As many wise folks here, like Rebecca Solnit as a strong example, have emphasized, voting is only one action in the fight for a more just society. The day after Hillary Clinton is elected, a responsible left must immediately begin pressuring her, as Sanders did so valiantly and somewhat successfully, to move toward greater transparency and progressivism.
Lastly, I’ll suggest that she’s also not as evil as you and others make her out to be. She’s similar in policies to Obama and Clinton, and besides being a historic and ceiling shattering inspiration, and small gesture against patriarchy, she is as smart and strong a public servant as we have. Yes, I would have preferred Sanders, but she’s what we’ve got, and I refuse to add to the left’s misogyny by hating on her.
Thanks for your care & voice all these years. I hope all’s well for you.
All true.
The ground-changes you mention are indeed needed desperately.
Still, Trump is an even greater hazard.
Personally-based politics are terribly unhelpful, but individual leaders who have huge amounts of power do matter.
– American politics have been largely destructive for years.
The most ethical pres in recent years, Jimmy Carter, was derided as “weak”.
Clinton’s policies will seem tame, compared with the unthinkable damage Trump would create.
A vital first step is to stop him, if any real progressive changes are to be made.