Hillary Clinton
As we hear repeated across mainstream media daily, the 2016 general election will be a race between two of the least popular candidates to ever run for office. This fact makes the two choices the lesser of two evils for most Americans by definition. Voters see Clinton as an untrustworthy hawk and Trump as an unqualified authoritarian in an electorate that has traditionally been fans of experience, faith in leadership, noninterventionism, and democracy.

 

Hillary Clinton is the poster child of the current status quo, a status quo that has led to the longest war in America history, increasing economic inequality, and an education system that leaves our high school graduates unable to compete with the rest of the world. But the status quo has provided us some good things as well, albeit in the vain of incrementalism. More Americans have health coverage through their employer, our unemployment rate is relatively low, and crime rates have been declining consistently.

 

Contrast this reality to the unpredictable reality of a Trump presidency. But it’s not just unpredictability. Being unpredictable in a system where the status quo is failing millions of Americans can be a good thing on its face. Maybe we don’t want to do things the way they’ve been done in the past and, instead, it’s time to start anew. Sounds compelling enough, maybe even desirable to some.

 

The problem is that’s not what Trump represents. What we really mean when we say that Trump is unpredictable is that we can predict he’ll take certain actions and behave in certain ways that aren’t what we’re accustomed to. We can predict that Trump might overreact to a terrorist attack and shut down mosques to alienate Muslims. We can predict that Trump might seek the option of using a nuclear weapon in the war against ISIS.

A Hillary Clinton presidency represents a number of things, and she contrasts Trump in that she’s almost perfectly predictable. She will push for an expanded security state to deal with terrorism, she will be eager to support regime change, and it’s unlikely she will regulate the commercial banking industry that has funded her for years.

Given the Trump alternative, I’ll take a Clinton reality 10 times out of 10. Now, sure, there are third party options that offer some compelling alternative visions of the country. The fact is we’re not there yet. The majority of Americans still see voting for third parties as a wasted vote, and the poll numbers of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will almost surely go down, not up, as we get closer to November.

So we’re left with two choices if we want a real say over who’s going to become our next President. One represents a status quo that, for all its deep and systemic flaws, has maintained an economy and social structure that is stable. The other represents an authoritarian strong man vision of the country that suggests we would be better off if we ignored our constitution and ruined out foreign relationships abroad.

Hillary Clinton holds a strong lead in the polls currently that, whether the country realizes it or not, must remain if we are to maintain our diversity embracing, pluralist democracy. If there’s one candidate who could shoot themselves in the foot and ruin this opportunity, it’s Hillary Clinton. For the sake of the country, I hope she doesn’t.

Load More Related Articles
Load More By Trevor Memmott
Load More In Politics & Policy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Bernie Sanders: “The Democratic Brand is Pretty Bad”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I – Vermont) took another swipe at the Democratic Party on Thursda…