We’ve talked about the myths of Hillary as a crooked liar. We’ve discussed the ways she’s different than Trump. We’ve covered how she’s hardly a DINO, but is more of a left-leaning, pragmatic, centrist.
We’re going to talk about how, if you plan to vote for someone other than Hillary, you aren’t a liberal.
Yes, I know, it seems like voting Green, or even voting for the Libertarians might be a liberal act. After all, Jill Stein won’t be leading us into any wars, right? And Gary Johnson, well…uh…actually, I don’t get why any self-described liberal would vote for Johnson, so let’s just ignore him and move on.
The nature of our political process is such that it allows for two and only two parties. This isn’t some big plot by the media, but rather, it’s simple mathematics, as this video shows.
The math is pretty irrefutable. Now there are voting systems that allow for more diversity, and I for one would love for us to have single transferable voting as our primary method. But that’s not what we have, most Americans wouldn’t want it (or would just say, “What?”), and no major politician is working toward it.
So like it or not, we’re stuck with a two party system. We were set on this course back in 1789, and we’re not deviating now. This means that, again, like it or not, your choice in this election comes down to Hillary Clinton, or the Republican Party’s actual, real, official nominee for President of the United States of America, Donald Trump.
Now you might want to vote your principles and vote for someone like professional candidate Jill Stein. Sure, she’s pretty anti-science, and the Green Party as a whole is very anti-science, but she’s vowed to keep us out of wars, and to stand up for the workers, and destroy the banks. And her vice-presidential choice? He’s an extreme racist who has no business being near any power. I’d be wary of him standing near an electrical socket.
You might ask yourself if you really want someone like him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but it’s irrelevant, because barring a miracle of truly Biblical proportions, Stein won’t win the presidency and he won’t be our vice-president. It’s just not going to happen. The polling doesn’t allow for it, and the mathematics don’t allow for it.
This leaves us in a situation where the choice is either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Now you might not like many of Clintons ideas or policy proposals. She might be too much of a hawk for you (though aside from her vote on the Iraq War, where is the evidence of this?). She might be too cozy with the banks. You might be displeased that she’s calling for a $12 an hour minimum wage instead of a $15 an hour one, never mind that only a couple of years ago, Obama was considered massively progressive when he called for a $10.10 minimum wage. You might want free college for all, instead of Hillary’s promise to have it for “only” four years. You might want single-payer health care, instead of a series of refinements and improvements to the ACA.
You know what? I want all of those things myself. I’m not really big on war, and I’m displeased with Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War (which wasn’t actually what the vote was, but it is what the vote amounted to). I’d love free college up to doctorate level, and I’d really like to have single-payer health care. As far as a $15 minimum wage goes, I think that’s a good start.
I want all those things, but I’m willing to settle, for now, for less. I’m willing to settle for $12 an hour, expanded ACA coverage, free college for four years, and occasional drone strikes. I’m willing to settle for those things, because the alternative is Trump. Trump won’t give us any of that. He’s planning to do away with the ACA, talks openly about war with Syria and Iran, seems to believe the minimum wage should be repealed in its entirety, and probably finds the idea of college itself to be a bit dangerous.
Trump will give us zero of what we want. Hillary will give us some of what we want. Stein, were she elected, might try, but would likely end up getting far less done than Hillary would simply because she lacks any kind of real political experience and has limited knowledge of how politics actually works (though to be fair, she was elected to two terms on a town council, though she didn’t finish her second).
So if you believe, if you truly believe, in liberal, progressive goals, you must vote for Hillary, and should be happy to do so. She’s one of two candidates who will be our president in a few months, and of the two, she’s the one who will move us closer to the goals we share.
If you continue to hold on to the idea of voting for Stein, or, for some bizarre reason, Johnson, then you are not, fundamentally, a liberal or a progressive. You’re a spoiled, whining child. You’re placing your ego above any kind of liberal and progressive goals. You’re saying that it’s more important that you register your disgust with both candidates than it is that you vote for the one who hews most closely to your own stated goals.
And make no mistake: a vote for anyone other than Hillary amounts to Trump. Your two choices are A or B, black or white, up or down, hamburger or hot dog. If you pick D, purple, sideways, and a kale salad, then you’ve essentially thrown away your vote. This amounts to a vote for the person you least want to have in office.
I know that seems unfair, but it’s true. If you fail to vote for Clinton, and vote Stein, for example, you are essentially voting in favor of Trump. You are taking away a vote from person A, giving it to person C, who isn’t going to win, and thus increasing the overall vote share that person B gets. This sucks, sure, but it’s simple math.
So let me say again: if you’re at all a liberal and/or progressive, and you want the kind of change that Bernie Sanders was calling for months ago, or even the kind of change that Jill Stein is after, then you must vote for Hillary. Imagine a scale of zero to ten, where zero is Trump, and 10 is Stein. On that scale, Hillary is around a six or a seven. That’s way better than zero.
Vote for Hillary, then hold her to her promises. The future is too important to do otherwise.