Politics as of April 23, 2016: my Facebook feed is full of national commentators and my personal acquaintances arguing that the time for “bashing” the presumptive Democratic party Hillary Clinton is over. I can offer a myriad of links and screen captures if there is any dispute that this is in fact a top-down/bottom-up phenomenon. This attempt to use peer pressure to silence the truth is bound to fail.
The truth is the truth. Sometimes a truth that should not be said in certain places or at certain times for some higher reason. You don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings with a statement of a truth that serves no higher purpose. Sometimes strategy dictates holding off on a truth at a particular time. Sometimes there is a greater and lesser truth and you may need to not mention the lesser at a particular time.
There are many legitimate reasons to not say a truth. But first, you should, in some forum, establish that the truth exists and is in fact true. Is the statement true? If yes, then what do you do about? See, a two step process.
This essay aims to establish a truth: Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate. To most people in America, this is completely clear right now. If she were indicted tomorrow by the FBI, probably a vast majority of the electorate (Bernie Sanders supporters, Republicans, and many of the undecided) would be relieved that she is not going to be president. It’s an odd situation in a democracy that you have the person mostly likely to be president that is reviled and hated by the majority of the citizens, but that’s what seems to be the case.
That leaves her supporters left to read this essay? No, anyone tempted to vote for Hillary as the lesser of two evils might want to consider just how bad she really is. HRC supporters are very unlikely to read beyond this point because they don’t want to know how bad she is. The idea that the democrats are nominating a bad candidate is disturbing. This feeling of unease in true Democrats is normal. It’s a worldview problem.
You know how the Puritans escaped religious persecution in England only to re-establish theocracy in Massachusetts? How could they do that? The thing to remember is that they weren’t against religious persecution. They were against persecution by the WRONG religion that is not TRUE against the religion that is RIGHT and TRUE.
This happens all the time. Let’s say you believe electing officials, democracy, for example, while knowing it’s not perfect, is a better system for picking a leader than seeing who can pull a sword out of a stone. You would be unlikely to accept a king who was chose because he pulled a sword out of a stone. If a majority of the people in your country chose to follow King Arthur and you think it would be better to vote to elect President Merlin, you will likely suppress the sword/rock system if you can and impose elections.
In both the religious controversy, Anglican v. Puritan, and the hypothetical government controversy, Democracy v. charisma, one side might want to stop the other side or never give in to their opponents, but in one case stubborn resistance would be the wrong choice and in the other example refusing to compromise on beliefs would be the right choice.
The two examples are different. In the religious controversy, there was no real truth at stake. Anglicanism, Catholicism, Dissenters, Lutherans, Calvinist: none of them was onto something fundamentally true that was false in the others. They all thought they were all right but they were all equally wrong/right. In the second example, history has shown that divine right or charism have not produced stable governments that help advance society. Only balanced democratic/republican mixtures have, with many backwards steps, provided a route to a better world.
The Hillary/Bernie split is more like the South/North split in 1860 or the divine right/democracy split than the Purital/Anglican split in 1600. One side is right and one side is wrong. You can tell because one side can openly and clearly state what they are for and it sounds like something everyone should be for and will still be true in 100 years. Watch me. I’ll show you.
Here is what we on the Bernie side are for:
We believe the government does not now serve the interests of the general population. A small group of wealthy people have captured the instruments of government through a system revolving door politician-lobbyist (or otherwise paid off) and corrupt campaign finance. The inequality in society is due to the influence the rich have over the government. Special interests have given us war and lousy government services and we should look around the world and change the system. We don’t worship money. We’re against restricting the right to vote. We’re against people hoarding billions of dollars. We’re against inequality and for more, fair, democratic government intervention to redistribute the wealth.
As we believe this truth about inequality, we support a candidate who did not participate in the revolving door system of politics.
And here is something I believe but that has not been part of the national campaign: America never developed a labor party like the Labor Party in the UK or the SPD in Germany because we have black and white workers (divide and conquer) and because the violence of the American labor period was more intense than in other countries. So, we don’t have free college, high minimum wage, and national health insurance, and all the other things that Bernie talks about. So his candidacy is filling a void of more than 100 years of dialogue.
See? Sounds like a coherent position? Something important? Sounds like 100 years from now, the people who said that this was true now will be seen as the ones who were right?
What is the Hillary Clinton equivalent moral/ethical/political stance?
I am a supporter of Bernie Sanders. Let me check and see if I am like a Puritan who can’t see out of a worldview that is no better than the alternative of if I am a democrat/republican who has chosen the least worst available option.
Can I articulate a vision to explain why my view is correct? Yes, I just did. Is Bernie perfect? No. Can I acknowledge some flaws? Yes. What do I do about the flaws? Consider them in light of other great people of history who also had flaws (Lincoln, MLK, Mandela, FDR etc.). Are Bernie’s flaws footnotes like the problems with these people given the scope of his life? Yes.
This essay is about Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders. If I were to write an essay on Bernie Sanders, I would point out his flaws and accomplishments and conclude that he is as great a political figure that America has ever produced. I know that’s high flying language, but in this other essay I’m not writing, I would make that case with a straight face. I mean that and can muster a good argument in favor of that position.
I don’t know if anyone wants to try to argue such a grandiose position for HRC. I don’t hear it much. Rather, the HRC supporter worldview is heavily dependent on the evil of the Republican party. Whether the Republicans are or are not evil is also not the subject of this essay. HRC supporters want to have a world with a good and bad party. If the good party is about to nominate a bad candidate, then that causes cognitive dissonance. The better response would be to recognize there is no good party, as many of us out here know. For along time, the hostility to the Republicans was enough to drive the Democrats further and further to the right. The Republicans have made for good villain material.
Sometimes, people see things different and no one is really right. Sometimes we see things in different ways and some of us are totally 100% right and the others are 100% wrong. Here, in this primary season between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, we are seeing an example of the second. Bernie is completely right and Clinton is utterly worthless.
It does not matter who actually wins the nomination. It does not matter who the Republicans nominate. It does not matter how much this offends HRC supporters. There is a truth here.
Just how bad is Hillary Clinton?
The following statement is not an insult. The following statement is not rude. It is not counterproductive or treason. The following statement is simply true and can and will be verified with facts thats are either true or not (and they are):
Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, greedy, foolish, dishonest, warmonger with no core beliefs who is in many ways worse than Richard Nixon or George W. Bush. She is also personally associated with Donald Trump in many ways.
Democrats don’t like to hear that but a large plurality of the population thinks it’s true. Many Republicans, Independents and Democrats, on the left, middle and right agree with that assessment of HRC. Many aren’t really sure. There are only a few that disagree.
Watch this. “Richard Nixon was corrupt.” I don’t think we’ll hear much dispute from anyone on that. That is the judgement of history. Luckily, the Republicans of the era were willing to go along with this statement as well.
Try this one: “George W Bush was a fool and a warmonger.” Hard to argue that the Iraq War was anything other than a mistake only a fool would make, and a terrible moral blight on the country and everyone who supported that immoral violent act.
Now, “Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, foolish, warmonger.” Howls. You’re insulting her! You’re damaging “our” candidate! Silence! How uncouth! No!
Again, from those few who still think the Democratic Party, as dominated by the Clintons, is worth something.
I argue Hillary Clinton is more corrupt than RIchard Nixon. The way to counter this argument is not to howl or yell at me. One way to counter the argument is to dispute my facts. That should be easy if I am wrong. I do not have first hand knowledge of these matters and rely on sources as linked below (plus information so readily available that I did not jam up the essay with a million links). If the facts are not in dispute, then you have to argue that what she did was not corrupt.
I wanted to go over the process of rational argument in case anyone forgot how it works.
-
Hillary Clinton is very rich. She did not get rich by owning a company or investing wisely or inheriting from family. She got rich by Bill and her giving speeches. True? No debate on this fact?
-
Almost all of the entities had business before the government and had paid lobbyists in Washington to advance their interests at the same time they paid the Clintons the money. See AP story below.
-
It is illegal for officials or candidates for federal office to take speaking fees exactly because these fees look like bribes or kickbacks even when no quid pro quo is proven.
-
There are specific examples of quid pro quo if you need those (see USB story below).
-
The Clinton Foundation, the Canadian uranium deal, arms sales to the Middle East, her campaign chief Podesta’s accounts in the Panama papers: it’s really too long a list to really cover.
-
Richard Nixon was a private citizen before running for president and could have taken such speaking fees but did not.
Conclusion: Hillary Clinton is more greedy than Nixon and more corrupt in money lust than he was. She is clearly for sale and has violated the spirit and probably the letter of the law on accepting money and then changing policy not to benefit the general public but herself.
Verdict: corrupt. You say she’s not? Transcripts please….
www.theatlantic.com/...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/09/29/the-mystery-of-hillarys-missing-millions/#10cf37b65505
Hillary Clinton is as bad and reckless a warmonger as George W. Bush. Again, the question is not whether you like the way that sounds or if that helps the party but whether or not it’s true. Let’s consider.
Facts:
-
The Libya policy under Obama was as much her baby as anyone. It failed miserably and was quite violent.
-
She voted for the Iraq War which failed miserably.
-
She wanted to do the same in Syria she had done in Libya and Obama said no by her own admission.
I think that’ll do it. There are more examples out there, but two failed wars ought to disqualify you for office.
Hillary Clinton is reckless and unwise. I know she is apparently intelligent but her history of bad decision making is horrifying.
-
She chose to put a classified email server in her basement to avoid Freedom of Information request. This decision led to an FBI criminal probe and all the email is now freely available. Can we call this a fail?
-
She chose to give speeches to Goldman Sachs and other financial firms right before she ran for president. She made transcripts of these speeches and then refused to release the transcripts of the speeches. Pretty dumb, no?
-
Her husband asked her to take on the issue of health insurance (Hillarycare). She held secretive meetings and in a political atmosphere not that different than the one Obama faced, failed to get anything passed. Another zero for her.
I already mentioned the Iraq War vote. What we have here is someone who does not listen to independent outside voices and makes rash, stupid choices. She keeps trying and failing to keep her dirty hidden (transcripts, email server, Hillarycare secret meetings). It never works but she keeps trying to be secretive in a democratic society. And getting burned. And learning nothing. You remember what Einstein said about stupid? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Hillary Clinton has no core beliefs. Feckless.
-
She said marriage between a man and a woman is a bedrock principle.
-
She switched from Republican to Democrat when she met Bill.
-
Hillary Clinton is a liar. Dishonest. Bosnia sniper fire. “I’m a progressive.” And whatever she said in those Goldman Sachs transcripts she won’t release. And where’s the hot sauce?
The last point before I give up: she went to Trump’s wedding, Bill played golf with Trump at least a dozen times (exactly how many?), and their daughters Ikanva and Chelsea are friends. This matters because the only argument she has in the general election is that she is not Trump. And Trump’s a racist.
Did he only say things like, “Mexicans are rapists,” In public in 2016 or did he say stuff like that to Bill when they were golfing? And why was she hanging out with a guy that bad? If you’re looking for someone to make the “lessor of two evils” argument, it would be hard to find a worse person to make the argument.
HRC is unlikely to have an epiphany at 69 and suddenly become prudent, wise, ethical, and favor the powerless over the powerful after being the opposite for so many years. It’s more likely that she won’t finish a term in office due to some Watergate like scandal.
Bernie may not be nominated as the democratic candidate for president. But he’s on the right side of history.
In conclusion, the Democratic Party is doing the people of the US a big disservice.
