Will a GOP Presidential Victory Signal the Apocalypse?
First, I should preface this diary with a few basic assumptions:
- I believe that America must join the rest of the civilised world in embracing Democratic Socialism in the way that Bernie Sanders has described it. This means expanded social services and benefits, universal health care, true racial justice and other structural reforms that are already the norm in places like Europe.
- I do not believe that Hillary is a true progressive. While she holds some progressive views, and while she is certainly “liberal” compared to the current radically rightist incarnation of the GOP, I believe that she is a corporatist first and foremost, and does not believe in or support the policies I have listed above.
- I believe that the USA is a strong country, with strong institutions and a strong and resilient population.
- I believe that as an American, I have the right to vote my conscience, and to vote for a candidate that I support.
- As a corollary to the above, I also believe that as an American I have the right NOT to vote for a candidate that I do not support.
-
I may well vote for Hillary if she does become the Democratic nominee. But if I do vote for her, it will NOT be because I have been scared, browbeaten, bullied or shamed into doing so. It will not be because I feel the need to “toe the line” or obey some perverted Leftist version of the “Buckley Rule.” Rather, I will vote for her because I believe she is sincere in her positions, and that she will be a progressive POTUS who will pursue liberal/progressive agendas and policies wherever possible. She will have plenty of time to convince me of that. But in the end, she will have to earn my vote just as she should have to earn everyone else’s.
This diary is written based on these beliefs.
Scare Tactics and the End of the World
Many Hillary supporters are quick to defend their candidate not on the issues and how she differs or is better than Bernie Sanders, but rather how she is better than the GOP. As the acknowledged frontrunner (so they say) she punches “up” and not “down” — she has already started her campaign against her potential Republican opponents and so she does not have to answer or address Bernie Sanders or his positions. I find this to be arrogant, offensive and un-democratic, but understandable political tactics given the current state of affairs.
Likewise, these supporters are quick to condemn anyone who might decline to vote for Hillary in a hypothetical general election. They describe a hellish nightmare that will be visited upon the American people should Hillary not win a general election. They paint lurid pictures of some doomsday scenario in which America descends into medieval dark ages, never to recover.
I do not buy these arguments as a sufficient reason to vote for a candidate that I do not support. The “lesser of two evils” argument does not wash with me. Let me explain why.
Conservatives’ Best Vote Driver: Hillary Rodham Clinton
First, I believe that these doomsayers seem to have a very low estimate of what the USA, its institutions and its people can withstand or overcome.
They also have a very shortsighted view of what "disaster" can look like.
What many fail to recognise is just how much Hillary will be “Conservative Catnip” every time she is on the ballot. The Right Wing base will walk through flames to vote against her. They will come out in droves for the chance to vote against her AND her Party, and to vote FOR anyone who promises to “stand up” to the evil Hillary Clinton. This situation will be exacerbated by a demoralised and downtrodden rest of the electorate, who will vote in low numbers, resulting in horrible, anti-democratic results down-ticket and off-year.
In short, If you thought the elections of 2010 and 2014 were bad, just imagine what mid-terms under a Clinton Administration would look like.
Yes, the GOP did plot to oppose everything Obama did. But with Hillary their opposition will reach all new heights. There are factions already calling for her to be impeached on her first day in office!
Obama never openly made war on the GOP, but Hillary is proud to call Republicans her "enemies" — indeed, they are the enemies of which she is most proud — and we all know the feeling is mutual. If Hillary is elected it will start a political war that will ensure that the entire Legislature is in FAR-RIGHT GOP hands for decades if not generations to come.
I say this because I also believe that Hillary will win re-election. If her “scare tactics” work to get her elected in 2016, they will work even better in 2020, when she will be able to point to the outrageous attacks on her and on democracy that the GOP has perpetrated in her first term, and the huge GOP advantage in the legislature and the Governors offices nationwide. Moreover, she and her political backers will have solidified their power positions in the media and the political establishment: the Third Way and New Democrats will have completely taken over the Democratic Party, and there will be absolutely ZERO chance of anyone mounting a credible campaign against her from the Left.
I know that Hillary supporters like to point out that the SCOTUS must be "protected" at all costs, but if that cost is to deepen, widen and poor flaming lava into the chasm that divides the American people, and to condemn them to a centre-right, corporatist oligarchy for generations to come, then I think that cost is too high.
Judges are, after all, free to vote their own mind, and many Reagan and Bush appointees have turned out to be surprisingly moderate.
What will NOT be moderate in any way, shape or form is the Congress and the Right Wing propaganda machine that will campaign against Hillary, raise money on Hillary, and elect far right candidates because, Hillary!
A Clinton Victory in 2016 — What will it mean?
There is no doubt that a President Clinton would be more liberal than a Republican President in many ways. But what does that mean? If Hillary is on the ballot, and the GOP can fire up their base with anti-Clinton propaganda, we must assume that the new Congress will be as intractable as the current one — and assuredly even more so. There will be little to be done on the legislative side, leaving President Clinton with very few areas where she can exercise direct influence. Primary among these are the “traditional” areas of Presidential autocracy: Foreign Policy, Trade and Judicial Nominations.
Foreign Policy: let’s be real — with Hillary Clinton we will see a more bold, aggressive and interventionist Foreign Policy. Her recent pronouncements make clear her intention to “take the fight to ISIS” which will mean such things as troops on the ground, a No Fly Zone, and an increased air campaign. The US will be sucked even further into the quagmire of Syria and Iraq, ISIS will get exactly what they want (a direct war with the forces of the “infidel”) and there will be another sad parade of flag draped caskets coming back to Dover AFB. American men and women will be killed, and ISIS will be able to recruit on a scale that they could only dream of now. And of course it is highly possible that we could end up with a direct confrontation with Russia such as we have not seen since the Cold War. I do not think that any of this will be a good thing. As a matter of fact, a Clinton Foreign Policy could lead America into a generations-long struggle against an ideology that will only grow and thrive thanks to our efforts. You cannot wage a Holy War unless the other side is fighting back, and Hillary has already shown herself willing to give ISIS that fight.
Trade: there is also little doubt that a President Hillary Clinton will be as pro-trade as her predecessors have been, and she will no doubt return to supporting the TPP after having secured some “modifications” to meet her “high bar” in terms of workers’ rights and so on. The passage of the TPP will be a global disaster in how it not only lowers wages around the world, but also in how it changes the basic structure of the balance of power between nation states and multinational corporations.
There is also no doubt that a Republican President would be just as hawkish in terms of Foreign Policy, and pro-Corporatist in terms of Trade. So here I see no real differences. That leaves Judicial Nominations.
Supreme Court: this is the area that most Clinton supporters point to as a reason to “hold one’s nose” and pull the lever for a candidate that one does not support. This is where the “lesser of two evils” argument really kicks in. The next POTUS will probably nominate 2 Supreme Court Justices, and — so the argument goes — we cannot allow a Republican to select radical conservatives to throw the Court completely to the Right. I do not buy this argument. As I mentioned above, Supremes are independent, and are often surprising in how they rule. PLUS - any nominee will have to be approved by a very conservative Senate, which will force President Clinton to nominate judges that are perceived to be “moderate” if not even slightly conservative. Overturning Citizens United will not, in the end, be a litmus test, and Hillary would be successful to nominate judges who will at least maintain the status quo. A Republican President would probably nominate judges that are more conservative activists, and we could see two more Scalias or Thomases placed on the bench.
This is, I admit, unfortunate, but it only rises to the level of disaster if you have given up on the Congress and the ability to pass progressive legislation. If you must rely on the White House and the Supreme Court to be your “last bastion” of liberalism; if you are convinced that a truly liberal/progressive agenda cannot win a majority in the Congress; if you believe that the Legislative Branch is lost forever to the forces of the far Right, then yes, losing leverage on the SCOTUS would be a disaster, as it would remove one of your two remaining lines of defence.
What a Clinton victory would mean in terms of historical significance is that we Democrats can and will be cowered into voting for the lesser of two evils; that we will continue to put our progressive preferences aside, we will continue to hold our collective noses and do the “sensible” or “strategic” thing to block the perceived advance of radical Conservatism, that when it comes to economic justice and the middle class, we will be content with trying to preserve the remaining shreds of what our predecessors achieved, rather than demand real progress in our own time. Clinton’’s Presidential victory will prove to the Democratic Establishment that scare tactics work, and that true progressive policies do not need to be on the agenda in order to win an election.
The famous Clinton triangulation strategy will once more be validated.
A GOP Victory in 2016 — The Darkness before the Dawn?
I truly believe that a Clinton victory in 2016 will lead to the solidification and entrenchment of Corporatist control of the US government. The New Democrats and the Third Way technocrats will expand and tighten their control of the Democratic Party, and the two Parties will move closer on most economic issues. Social Security will not be expanded; Trade will be done for the benefit of Corporate donors; Health Care will continue to be a Rube Goldberg maze of programs and subsidies whose ultimate result will be to enrich the for-profit Insurance companies and Big Pharma. As I mention above, by the year 2024 the great liberal and progressive history of the Democratic Party will seem like a half-forgotten fantasy. Heck, there are already many who say that Bernie’s proposed return to FDR New Deal style progressivism is a fantasy with no basis in reality. How improbable will it then seem should a similar candidate try to run on such an agenda 10 years from now?
If, on the other hand, a true conservative Republican is elected to the Oval Office, it will show that centrist, moderate candidates are not sure winners, that triangulation and Third Way policies of economic conservatism, hawkish Foreign Policy and “tough on crime” domestic policies no longer work for Democratic candidates. Harry Truman will have been proved right, and Al From and the apparatchiks of the DLC/New Democrat Coalition will be sent packing.
Most importantly of all, it will open the door for a real Progressive to run in 2020. That is the prize, and we must not take our eyes off it. We must do what is best for our country and our party. Hillary has famously said that “every once in a while we need to save Capitalism from itself.”
Well, the same goes for the Democratic Party, and this is one of those times.
A final note before you set your flame throwers to crispy:
This is a diary. It reflects what is going on in my head at this time. I welcome comments, but I would hope that they will be counter-agumentative and not simply ad hominem condemnations or attacks on my intelligence.
I have written this diary to provide an argument for those who do not feel right in voting for a Clinton Presidency and who feel, as I do, that such a Presidency would be profoundly detrimental to the Progressive Movement in the country. Feel free to agree or disagree, and by all means, please point out where I have gotten any facts wrong. But I would respectfully ask that you not simply push more scare tactics onto the readership (see Hieronymus Bosch above).
I REPEAT:
-
I may well vote for Hillary if she does become the Democratic nominee. But if I do vote for her, it will NOT be because I have been scared, browbeaten, bullied or shamed into doing so. It will not be because I feel the need to “toe the line” or obey some perverted Leftist version of the “Buckley Rule.” Rather, I will vote for her because I believe she is sincere in her positions, and that she will be a progressive POTUS who will pursue liberal/progressive agendas and policies wherever possible. She will have plenty of time to convince me of that. But in the end, she will have to earn my vote just as she should have to earn everyone else’s.