So, I'm tired of watching all the feels at the Democratic convention, and how so many arguments for Clinton have to do with how much she cares and blah blah blah. I'm also tired of hearing lesser of two evils arguments. People, it's not that hard to make a positive case for your candidate, even when that candidate is Hillary Clinton. Heck, I want to prove it. Now, this will not paint Clinton as perfect. I'm working with someone who is flawed and who I don't agree with. But despite my dislike of her, I still nevertheless see her as a fairly solid option, especially for those center of the road or center left. Without further ado, let's get to it.
Experience
Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate running for president of the United States. For better or for worse, she has been preparing for this position since at least 2001, possibly since 1992. She has a very long resume, being a very active first lady in Bill's administration, being a senator, and then Secretary of State. She's helped develop and pass many programs that help children, she helped people harmed cleaning up 9/11 get adequate medical compensation, and she also was part of the administration that got Osama Bin Laden. She doesn't have a perfect record, I mean, someone this experienced in politics is going to make mistakes here and there, but she's far more qualified than anyone else running. Trump clearly has no idea what he's doing. Stein isn't much better. Johnson has at least held public office before but isn't as qualified as Clinton by a long shot.
Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is the kind of policy that the president has the most control over, being the commander in chief of the military, and Clinton is uniquely qualified for the job. She has a lot of experience from her previous roles in government, and probably has a better understanding of the way the world works than anyone else running. She knows how to deal with Russia, with ISIS, with China, etc. She knows how to shrewdly negotiate and make a deal with foreign powers that work in our favor. You can rest safe at night knowing that Clinton has the safety of the nation firmly in her hands, and she will keep you as safe as any politician reasonably can.
Social Policy
Clinton is a candidate whose views are based on freedom, and on science. Unlike the republicans, who can't figure out the world is over 6000 years old, that access to abortion and birth control are good things, and that gay people aren't causing category 5 hurricanes to hit New Orleans by simply by existing and incurring the wrath of homophobic deities, Clinton believes that access to abortion is necessary, that women who have autonomy over their own bodies, and that people should have reproductive freedom. Clinton believe that your business in the bedroom is yours, and as long as it's between two consenting adults, that's okay. Clinton recognizes the realities of illegal immigration and that deporting 11 million people will cause way more harm than good, and that most of these people being here are not harming the US much at all. She also recognizes that perhaps the biggest threat to our national security isn't necessarily ISIS or Muslims, but maybe it's the fact that it's too easy for people who shouldn't have guns, to get guns. All in all, Clinton will focus on the real issues that actually impact Americans in tangible ways, leaving people to be able to live as they want without harming others. Amazing. I know.
Economic Policy
Clinton may not be as progressive as Sanders, but she understands that you at least need some safety nets for the economy to function. She isn't going to give you universal healthcare, or free education, or basic income, but she does recognize that republican laissez faire is harmful. She understands that gee, maybe unions are a good thing for the economy (I hope). She recognizes we may need an increased minimum wage. She understands people, even those who try their best and play by the rules, are going to ultimately need help. So she wants programs that help people like unemployment, social security and Obamacare. You can argue her ways are not the best, but they at least work. And yes, she at least says she wants to implement SOME of Sanders' ideas. I mean, she actually is for free...ish education now assuming you have a reasonably low income level and aren't loaded.
Summing up the argument
All in all, Clinton is not the progressive champion we need, but she is nevertheless a solid candidate. She has the experience and know how to get things done. She has the foreign policy experience necessarily to run our nation and keep us safe. She has a solid social policy that focuses on the real issues and allows people to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. And while her economic policy isn't perfect, it's at least workable. She isn't going to fix every problem, but she will act as a competent executive that will keep you safe and give you a leg up when you really really need it.
Conclusion
I'm going to start being the more cynical me now. I really don't know why this is so freaking hard for the democrats to figure out. Hillary's opponent is DONALD TRUMP. The guy is an idiot. I'm surprised he can run his financial empire all things considered and even then he went bankrupt a few times. But really, there are better arguments for Clinton than how much she cares and how bad Trump is. She has a whole lifetime of experience to run on. Use it. She doesn't need to rig primaries and scare us into falling in line or else. She does, on the other hand, make a positive case for herself, and make up for a ton of alienation done over the course of the past year.
Considering the problems we face, I've never been excited about Clinton. She's not what we need. She won't fix the economy in meaningful ways. She won't bring economic justice or make things better. But at least before this primary season, I respected her. I lost that respect, with her inability to make a case for herself that connects, and the DNC's general negative disposition toward Bernie, his ideas, and his supporters and their flagrant bias toward Clinton.
I really believe things didn't have to be this way. Even if Sanders lost fair and square, Clinton could still be a good runner up. She's basically a third term of Obama. And if she ran a clean campaign, if she made a positive case for herself, I could've easily fallen in line and supported her. I was totally on board with the democratic party agenda before this election.
But when you decide to alienate your opponent's supporters in every way possible and then rub salt in the wounds by telling us we HAVE to support you or else bad things will happen? It makes me wonder if you're TRYING to lose. Again, I really do want to point out it doesn't have to be this way. Objectively, Clinton IS a stronger candidate than Stein in many many ways. The only reason I'm supporting Stein is to push back against the democrats being so awful this time around. Again, it's like they're trying to alienate their own base and lose. What the actual fudge.
Anyway, I just felt it was necessary to argue a case for Clinton better than the DNC can. If anyone reads this, feel free to comment to me on whether this case would have influenced you if not for all the crap going on this year. I mean, I really could've gone for Clinton this year if she were a bit more accommodating for Sanders, or at least wasn't so hostile.
No comments:
Post a Comment