Jill Stein has been getting a lot of flak in the last week since the convention. With Sanders out of it, the democrats in particular are trying to shoot down their next big rival on the left, and Stein is that rival.
I'm not going to lie. I don't think Stein's a perfect candidate, and many of these criticisms have at least some legitimacy. I have discussed her shortcomings before. However, I feel like I should at least give my take on the situation. Before I do though, I want to be clear.
I think that GMOs are largely safe and that labeling is unnecessary and panders to the anti science crowd.
I think nuclear power is one of the safest forms of power out there, all things considered.
I think vaccines are safe, effective, and have done a great service to humanity.
I think that wifi does not cause significant problems in people.
I think homeopathy is BS and is about as effective as faith healing and other placebos.
I don't buy into any of the anti science woo woo stuff the green party is selling. I really want to make that clear. I recognize it's a problem, but it's nowhere near as much of a problem as it's made out to be. Honestly, her anti science positions are a small part of their platform, are low on my list of concerns, and are, to some degree, over exaggerated.
On the over exaggeration, yes, Stein said some weird things about vaccines in the past and has a habit of dodging questions, but under pressure came out in favor of them. Snopes has ruled that her being anti vaccine is flat out false. Now, and this is a valid argument, people have said she should not have equivocated. And I agree, she should not have. I do think there's a problem with her being inconsistent here.
Stein has also expressed concerns recently over wifi signals affecting children. I'm not going to defend this one, and I fundamentally disagree with it. The thing is, though, the green party seems to have these anti science woo woo left wingers as a core constituency, and we are the newcomers to their party (we, as in, Bernie supporters, disaffected liberals). She was asked a question by her constituents, and she answered in a way to pander to them. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, but it's understandable if she wants to get votes (and she needs them badly).
Perhaps if we can grow their movement by supporting them, they will shed their anti science stuff because it's not popular. I mean, if 30-50% of your constituents believe something maybe it's not wise to alienate them. However, if they become negligible, say, 5% or something, maybe they will be less reliant on these voters and maybe they will become a party that is more supportive of science. But I do think we should overlook it this time, considering the bigger issues at work here.
Look, Stein is no Ralph Nader. I know that. She is, to put it bluntly, not as intelligent, experienced, or articulate on the issues as Nader was. But this is what we're stuck with. Most states are only going to have four options on the ballot this November, and those options are Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. I've discussed all four of these guys before, and none of them are perfect. There may be some other candidates you can write in like Zoltan Istvan, but I don't think he's any better in all honesty.
If you're a lefty like me, your only choices here are Stein and Hillary Clinton. If you legitimately like Clinton, go for it. However, I believe that we have bigger fish to fry than a few anti vaxxers and other anti science woo woo stuff. It's not a position I like and sometimes Stein makes me cringe too, but I want to remind people why they should reconsider the democrats. The democrats spent this whole primary astroturfing their narrative, shutting down dissent to their party line, and showing blatant favoritism toward Clinton, a moderate corporatist liberal with connections to the 1%. The democrats had two choices this election. They could've went with Clinton, or they could've went with Sanders. And as a Sanders supporter, I feel like I've been utterly alienated from the democrats this time around. I feel like the democrats have told us to shut up, sit down, and fall in line. I feel like they've done everything they can to shut us down, to condescend to us, to alienate us, and beat us down. They're essentially trying to break us in so to speak, to be good little democrats who knows their place and who follow their lead with no independent thought. If we vote for them, expect nothing to change on the large scale. They will continue doing what they've been doing, our political system will remain broken, our problems will go unsolved, and in 4 years they'll mistreat us again. Quite frankly, the democrats don't deserve our votes if you ask me after what they've done to us (us being Sanders supporters). And I honestly believe standing up to them, pushing for more progressive ideas, and not bowing down to them is way more important than a few cringey anti science stances.
No candidate is perfect. Not Trump, not Clinton, not Johnson, not Stein, not even Sanders, who I hold in particularly high regard. You gotta choose your battles here, and refusing to support Stein over her anti science stuff seems fairly...minor. I mean, if you dont like Stein, it's your opinion, but I personally hold the opinion that we have bigger fish to fry. If you have another candidate than Stein you like better, vote for them obviously. I'm not trying to make anyone "fall in line" here. But I am expressing why I, as a pro science guy, can get behind a candidate who accepts such quackery.
No comments:
Post a Comment