This election has practically ruined the word “pragmatism.”
Even before Donald
Trump Drumpf’s candidacy mutated from a surreal joke into a horrifying reality, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has repeatedly insisted that she is the “pragmatic” choice to defeat any Republican candidate. Yet poll after poll after poll has consistently shown Bernie Sanders clobbering each of them, including Trump Drumpf, by wide margins, while Clinton’s potential lead over even the carnival-barking orangutan has collapsed.
The explanation for this is simple, of course: people who haven’t been completely brainwashed by either major party LOVE Bernie Sanders. He packs stadiums with crowds bigger than Barack Obama’s in 2007 and 2008, while Hillary struggles to fill high-school gymnasiums. His sincerity, empathy, and sense of humor strike a polar contrast to Hillary’s evasive, imperious attitude, general dishonesty, and voice that grates like sheet metal on a table saw whenever she shouts.
He says what he means, like
Trump Drumpf, without being a total asshole. Hillary is a total asshole, like Trump Drumpf, without saying what she means.
Bernie’s big ideas and expansive vision excite people. Meanwhile, nobody has ever been truly excited to vote for Hillary Clinton. Nobody. I’m not even sure Hillary Clinton is, since she clearly sees this as some kind of Show Election, a piddling inconvenience on the way to establishing the monarchy of Clinton II.
What people are excited to vote for is A Woman, and Hillary seeks to parasitically exploit this desire. They’re apparently too impatient to wait just a bit longer for a GOOD female candidate, someone who isn’t Nixon in drag, or a clone of Margaret Thatcher – someone who doesn’t put the “woman” in “warmonger!”
I mean, I understand. They have good reason for impatience. But I’m afraid doing the right thing at the wrong time, especially with the wrong person as the figurehead, could do to women in high office what I fear Fantastic 4 may have done to casting minorities in traditionally white roles, or Ghostbusters could do to casting women in traditionally male roles if it’s anything less than fantastic: arm bigots with smug cries of “I TOLD YA SO” the way Hillary armed ISIS.
Hillary voters would rather sacrifice future, lasting gains and opportunities for feminist advancement to the volcano of Hillary’s ego in exchange for immediate, but fleeting satisfaction.
That assumes she could even defeat
Trump Drumpf in the General Election, of course, a prospect that has become less and less certain with each passing day. Perhaps the worst omen, as far as that goes, was delivered by one of her own supporters, former Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, all the way back in February:
“You remember 2004? People said they wanted to dance with Howard Dean and marry John Kerry. That’s how it is this year. People wanted to dance with Bernie, have some fun, but it’s time to marry Hillary. It’s time to get behind her. When it comes down to it, they want their vote to count.”
Do YOU remember 2004, Tom? Is that really the model you want to follow, when the penalty for failure is PRESIDENT
By the way, good job comparing Bernie Sanders to the stripper at a bachelor party, who the groom’s douchy, frat-boy buddies pay to give him one last night of wild, N.S.A. sex before his doomed marriage to a boring, sensible gal. I suppose you think it’s not misogynistic for you to use that analogy, because you’re supporting a female candidate, throwing your arm over her shoulder for an uncomfortable photo-op like “Stephen Colbert” and his “black friend,” Alan?
It turns out Bernie Sanders is and always has been the “pragmatic” choice to defeat
Trump Drumpf. Like every other word out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth, such as her commitment to a final debate in California, claims to the contrary were lies, or at least dredged from a deep well of self-deception.
To be clear, I don’t think Hillary and
Trump Drumpf are the same, as a friend of mine has correctly pointed out on several occasions. While I don’t doubt some people do hold that point of view, I find it to be a gross simplification of a more complex issue.
Instead, I would say both Hillary and
Trump Drumpf are awful in sometimes similar, but often different ways. For instance, I don’t believe Hillary would champion religious or ethnic cleansing (though she does seem to be okay with the idea of deporting Central American children back to drug war-zones, and absolutely tickled to bomb the Middle East), while the best-case-scenario with Trump Drumpf is that he’s just putting on a show to win the votes of dumb, violent racists.
I think Hillary would probably have better control over her temper during tense, pivotal moments, and she’s almost certainly smarter than
Trump Drumpf, despite her campaign always being a minimum of two election cycles behind in terms of modern strategy and branding.
But while I think
Trump Drumpf is more likely to try and start a war, I’m positive Hillary is far more likely to succeed at starting several. There’s at least the possibility that her policies with regard to Wall Street, bank collusion, and even healthcare are worse than Trump Drumpf’s, because while Trump Drumpf’s primary motivation in life is making people think he’s awesome, Hillary’s is greed and the cold amassment of personal power. Both are forms of megalomaniacal egotism, but there are situations where Trump Drumpf’s may actually be less-threatening, where he would do the right thing for the wrong reasons, whereas Hillary would most likely do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
And both would push environmental policies that will (continue to) destroy the planet. Hillary might pay lip-service to environmentalism, but her actions have shown profit is her priority. “Fool me once…”
Trump Drumpf is one of the few candidates for President compared to whom Hillary could be seen as a preferable alternative, and depending on who you ask, one could say vice-versa, as well. He and she are both somehow the stereotypical ugly friend the other stands next to in order to look less-ugly by comparison.
But we don’t HAVE to settle for either one, because there’s still a good-looking candidate left in the race – despite what shills in the media salivating over a mud wrestling match might tell you – and his name is Bernie Sanders.