I can already sense some readers tensing at the title.
“What, do you want Hillary to be President!?”
Uh, no. But I don’t want the Donald as President, either.
Let me explain. Warning: rant incoming.
We’ve already talked about how this year is the epitome of anti-establishment feeling in the USA, but what’s more than that, we have collectively decided that our politicians are incredibly corrupt. In some cases it’s highly probable that they are – Hillary, for a high-profile example – but it’s equally probable that most politicians are not, in fact, guilty of anything more than the occasional (but still corrupt) quid pro quo. Conservatives have also concluded that private businessmen are apparently never corrupt.
Therefore we have, as of the RNC and DNC, saddled ourselves with two archetypes. The first, Hillary Clinton, is the epitome of political corruption and scandal-ridden career politicians. Though she has not openly leaned on it as much as some allege, she has had to rely far more than she would like on the fact that she is a woman.
The second is Donald Trump. But if Clinton represents the above, what does Trump represent? What is he the archetype of?
Donald Trump is the very archetype of self-promotion. That’s the main thing he does, licensing. He has, essentially, been selling his name for years. Why was anyone surprised he was good at politics?
Let me make one thing very clear. I am not ‘scared’ of Donald Trump. Neither of these candidates scare me.
Donald personifies NY society and greed. Hillary personifies DC society and greed. There is no difference. This is especially true now, since Trump has pivoted on the issues to go from a nationalist Conservative to a pure Nationalist, who has clinched the Republican nomination and no longer has to pay lip service to conservative economics. He has supported raising the minimum wage, will do nothing about abortion even though he claims to be pro-life, and supported gun control. Are those conservative positions? He is the nominee for the economically conservative party and does not even pretend to follow its ideology. This doesn’t bode well, especially not for his effectiveness as a POTUS.
What’s worse is the claim that his business record prepares him to run the country. This isn’t comparing apples and oranges, it’s comparing an apple to a fox. They’re both reddish sometimes, but that’s it. The differences are under the surface. Even if he were to prove himself a perfect businessman, and he hasn’t, this would be problematic.
Further, he is probably a liar, the moniker he likes to reserve for Hillary. He claims to have ten billion dollars, but Forbes estimates his worth at four and half billion dollars. That’s still a lot, but he’s either lying or breaking the law – and neither proposition makes him attractive as a candidate.
The central question, since he shares many traits with his opponent, is one of nationalist policies versus globalist policies, and this is, too, a ridiculous choice. Absolute globalism leads to a failure to focus on one’s own country’s welfare. Absolute nationalism is dangerous for a less obvious reason. In ancient times, when countries were mostly self-sufficient, nationalism was fine, even good occasionally, but now we are too reliant on trade. It’s a simple fact: nationalism will result in a breakdown of diplomatic relationships, which will end in trade issues.
Speaking of diplomatic breakdowns, Trump and Vladimir Putin have a Mutual Admiration Club. This might sound like a good thing at face value, but supporting Russia will deteriorate our relationship with other countries that are far more pivotal to a peaceful world. It is hyperbolic to say with assurance that Donald Trump will start WWIII, but the fact that the question is on the table should raise eyebrows.
In the end, it is not enough to say you will vote for Hillary to block Trump or Trump to block Hillary; there is so little difference in the ‘threat level’ of the two as to make the question ridiculous.
“A vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Hillary!”
“A vote for anyone but Hillary is a vote for Trump!”
No. No, it is not. If I vote for Gary Johnson, I am voting for Gary Johnson; if I vote for Jill Stein, I am voting for Jill Stein, and it is the same if I vote for anyone who is actually running for the position. The only way to throw away your vote is to not vote at all. Polls put the Corruption Duo in a dead heat. Your vote should be for someone, not against someone. I cannot support corruption whether it comes from the left or the right, so I will vote for neither. I cannot support disastrous economic illiteracy from either party. I will support the person most likely to make a difference and to make an impact. The fact that I have not once been in a conversation with Trump or Hillary supporters who can convince me of their candidate’s virtues without mentioning the other’s vices is proof of the failure of the Two-Party system.
It is time for a change. Either the Democrats and Republicans will wake up or We the People will have to change things for them. It is that simple.