This article can also be found at Tremr.
Hillary Clinton is far from the ideal presidential candidate. She’s been viewed as a warmonger with her alarmingly hawkish foreign policy strategies and has been accused of being “owned by Wall Street.” H.A. Goodman wrote a Tremr piece recently depicting his preference not to vote at all, accordingly allowing for a Trump presidency, over the prospect of voting for Clinton.
A wave of staunch Bernie Sanders supporters have declared that, like Mr. Goodman, they too will not vote in the presidential election, should Sanders not gain the democratic nomination. One-third of Sanders supporters do not view Clinton in a positive light, and some have even gone as far as to say they would even prefer to cast their votes toward Trump, should they be forced to choose between Trump and Clinton.
Yet if Sanders concedes (and he likely will given his current juxtaposition in the race), then it is absolutely critical that his supporters, assuming they are in fact concerned with the future state of American politics, shift their support toward Clinton.
No liberal voter in good conscience can rightfully expect that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will represent their concerns better than Clinton will. Clinton and Sanders may differ on numerous issues, but at a fundamental level, “even if she’s wrong about everything else, Hillary Clinton is on the right side of [the] issues.” Bullheaded support of Sanders “wont accomplish anything useful in November if he’s no longer running. And writing his name on the ballot when he’s not eligible is a perfectly meaningless gesture.”
In the words of Bernie himself: “On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day.”
In actuality Sanders and Clinton are much more similar candidates than is commonly acknowledged. Both are effectively moving toward the same goals in fundamental domestic issues – the primary difference being the speed at which each is moving;
Sanders is noted for his call for free college education – Clinton wants to eliminate college debt.
Sanders wants to break up the nation’s largest banks, cold-turkey style – Clinton wants to break up the banks that pose risk.
Sanders wants to “end institutional racism” – Clinton wants to “tackle mass incarceration” and “reform criminal justice.”
As exemplified by the above, the factor that makes Clinton the infinitely more realistic choice is her pragmatism. Sanders’ goals are idealistic and not always representative of “the country we actually live in.” His tax-increase proposal has not yet been tested during peacetime. And when it comes to foreign policy, Clinton’s approach is far from ideal, but Sanders has barely given voters an idea of what kind of approach he would take. Many of Sanders’ proposals are praiseworthy in an idealistic sense, but a Clinton presidency would undoubtedly accomplish more.
The notion that Hillary Clinton would not make a better president than Donald Trump, as asserted by Mr. Goodman, is frankly absurd. Clinton is certainly not the perfect candidate, but she is the best choice when the alternative is Donald Trump. Trump has no experience in politics and has given voters absolutely no previous indication that he would in fact be able to do the job.
The campaign that Sanders is waging is a symbolic one. His genuineness as a politician is refreshing to say the least, but “if his movement is to amount to anything, it will be because the people he inspired remain engaged beyond 2016.”
So, Bernie Enthusiasts who genuinely care for the future of American politics, it might indeed be time to put away the “Feel the Bern” posters and instead start rallying behind Hillary.
Photo courtesy of USA Today