This notice came from Robert Reich at MoveOn.com:
Dear fellow MoveOn member,
Last week, as Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination for president, he called on Bernie Sanders supporters to back his candidacy.1 It’s tempting to laugh, but it’s actually a smart strategy—and it could even win Trump the White House.
While Bernie supporters won’t move to Trump en masse, if enough Bernie voters just stay home, it’s enough to give Trump an edge—and the presidency.
Hillary Clinton, who made history on Thursday night, has embraced a number of Bernie’s policies that would make a big difference for millions of people—including a bold, new, affordable higher education proposal, which Bernie himself endorsed.2 But Clinton has about a third of Bernie supporters left to try to win over.3 And Bernie supporters have voted less frequently in the past than other 2016 voters.4 These voters could decide the election.
That’s why MoveOn has such an important role to play this election cycle.
As the biggest independent progressive group that supported Bernie Sanders, MoveOn is uniquely poised to help turn out those of his supporters who are most likely to stay home in November. Will you chip in $5 a month to help make sure progressive voters in swing states turn out to defeat Trump?
National polls conducted since Trump’s acceptance speech are downright terrifying: Trump has taken the lead in many of them.5 These polls and the election data show that—if the election were today—chances are that he would be our 45th president.6
Will you join me in supporting MoveOn’s all-out, highly strategic campaign to engage progressives in this election—and defeat Donald Trump? Your ongoing support will help make this campaign possible through Election Day.
Click here to chip in $5 a month.
Or, if you can’t make a monthly donation, click here.
Here’s what your donation will support:
Savvy social media to cut through lies and educate voters about the high stakes of this election—complete with rapid-response videos that will be seen and shared tens of millions of times and reach an audience roughly the size of a cable news program.
Door-to-door volunteer canvasses in 10 key states, using the proven model MoveOn tested recently in Ohio—because there is no better alternative than human connection as an antidote to hatred and fear.
MoveOn spokespeople and MoveOn members on TV—to help create a breakthrough, alternative narrative about what makes America truly great.
Will you help MoveOn ensure that every progressive voter in a swing state who’s considering staying home or voting third party this fall knows just how dangerous Donald Trump is by chipping in $5 a month right now?
Yes, I’ll chip in monthly to help stop Donald Trump.
No, I’m sorry, I can’t make a monthly donation.
Thanks for all you do.
–Robert Reich
Sources:
1. “Full text: Donald Trump 2016 RNC draft speech transcript,” Politico, July 21, 2016
http://act.moveon.org/go/4849?t=23&akid=167182.27327500.mM8rDh
2. “Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan,” The New York Times, July 6, 2016
http://act.moveon.org/go/4911?t=25&akid=167182.27327500.mM8rDh
3. “Why Clinton Might Have A Tough Time Flipping The Sanders Holdouts,” FiveThirtyEight, July 25, 2016
http://act.moveon.org/go/4850?t=27&akid=167182.27327500.mM8rDh
4. Ibid.
5. “2016 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton,” The Huffington Post, accessed July 30, 2016
http://act.moveon.org/go/4738?t=29&akid=167182.27327500.mM8rDh
6. “Who will win the presidency?” FiveThirtyEight, accessed July 30, 2016
http://act.moveon.org/go/4828?t=31&akid=167182.27327500.mM8rDh
Want to support MoveOn’s work? As the biggest independent progressive group that supported Bernie Sanders, MoveOn is uniquely poised to help turn out those of his supporters who are most likely to stay home in November. Can you chip in $5 a month to help us work from now through Election Day to make sure progressive voters turn out to defeat Donald Trump?
Yes, I’ll chip in monthly.
No, I’m sorry, I can’t make a monthly donation.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
I thought Trump’s most recent poll numbers were in decline due to his recurring case of Aphthae epizooticae. In any case, we cannot be complacent and should vote for her as advised by Bernie, Mike Moore and Reich. Noam Chomsky has also come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, Hedges and West will vote for Jill Stein. I think they are mistaken but they do have a legitimate point of view. A Trump victory would set us back much more than a Hillary victory.
Yesterday I was scanning Tweets and came across one that claimed that Hillary Clinton’s medical records had been surreptitiously leaked, that she suffers from dementia, and that the father of the doctor who treated her mysteriously died, yet another of the mysterious deaths of anyone critical of the Clintons. Yes, there on Twitter are medical records that are allegedly Hillary’s, which there is no way of authenticating. So I googled the name of the man who mysteriously died, Vincent Fleck. He was 69, and he was participating in a triathlon. While swimming, he was in distress, the lifeguard came to rescue him but he died, perhaps of a stroke or a heart attack. There was no suggestion in any of the articles that he was the victim of foul play. None of this was mentioned on the conspiracy website; it made it seem as though the man was hit by a poison dart while sitting quietly at his dinner table, or was mugged and killed on the street by a CIA operative. The conspiracy story first appeared in a Russian newspaper.
This is all too much for me. Some people hate Hillary with such passion that they believe she is a mass murderer. I have not yet seen a suggestion that she killed JFK (I think she was in high school then, and Donald Trump has insinuated that Ted Cruz’s father did it, along with Lee Harvey Oswald).
We sure could use some critical thinking and skepticism training in our schools and in our society.
Yes, Hillary derangement syndrome is off the charts.
Watching the Friday news analysis shows over pizza, it is generally stated Trump is unstable and lacks the ability to govern. But he hangs on to a ~40% base. Brooks said he’s been on a mission to find out why he was wrong about Trump’s nomination. Brook’s analysis was a loss of dignity and a sense of unfairness throughout middle America. Most Trump supporters would not like the guy if they met him. He’s more like the suit who fired them than the coworker socializing over drinks at happy hour. Trump is part of the problem, not the solution. But the coastal Democrats seem completely tone deaf to what is going on with the rise of Trump. People are angry and fearful. They want change, not Obama 2.0 in the form of Clinton. I hope Democrats begin to address this before November.
Well, in the immortal words of one Captain James T. Kirk, “This is an extremely primitive and paranoid culture.” 🙂
Leaving aside strategies/choices for voting in November, I’d like to suggest the following when thinking about Hillary:
It’s like the OJ Simpson case: yes, the LAPD is an endemically racist institution with a long history of targeting a Black people, and yes, OJ is a murderer. Both statements can be true and do not negate each other.
Likewise, Hillary is simultaneously the target of vicious misogyny and “a vast right wing conspiracy” to bring her down (undeniably true), while simultaneously being dishonest (as reports about Clinton Foundation shenanigans are gradually revealing), a serial betrayer of her ostensible political bases, a neoliberal on trade and economics, and an dead ender neo-con on foreign policy.
Yes, she’s the target of some really, really awful people, and yes, she’s really, really awful herself. Thus, the gruesome choices facing the American electorate.
I agree with the closing thought of Diane’s response, and offer this solution: in a developmentally appropriate way, add the study of logical fallacies to K-12 curriculums. The idea of teaching kids how to detect and see through lies from an early age is sure to strike terror into the hearts of politicians and marketing companies. It would be a great addition to the other things already in place that enhance critical thinking skills.
In the 100% immigrant high school where I teach, a number of us teaching non-fiction, er, “informational text,” often introduce critical thinking skills and fallacies by reading Max Shulman’s wonderful (if cringe-inducingly sexist) story, “Love is a Fallacy.”
The kids invariably love it, start spontaneously identifying fallacies in their own discussions and writing, and needless to say, have an infinitude of examples in public life to practice on. One can almost imagine writers of future “Introduction to Critical Thinking” textbooks getting on their knees every night and thanking The Lord for Donald Trump, who daily provides us with a groaning board of fallacies that even the most dedicated glutton cannot consume…
As Diane and Jon say, the explicit teaching of logical fallacies and critical thinking skills is necessary, and it’s not hyperbole (something I never engage in!) to say it’s needed for the survival of the Republic, whomever wins the election.
Also ironic, or to be expected, depending on your level of cynicism, that the Common Core Standards that had to be unquestioningly obeyed originally marketed themselves as fostering critical thinking skills.
Michael,
You can think critically of other things, but not the Common Core standards. Take them on faith.
A wonderful book about fallacies was written by David Hackett Fischer, called “Historians’ Fallacies.” It is not limited to history. It is just an excellent analysis of fallacies and illogic.
Diane
15 year old Hillary was complicit in the assassination of JFK . Working for Goldwater was just a front to disguise the Cuban connection . Which is why Obama visited Cuba . I know Trump supporters wont read your blog so our secrete is safe.
I Believe, Diane, I believe.
Now pass me the Victory Gin…
Hillary needs to take a stronger stance on labor support, college affordability, and countering the effects of globalization. Her tax plan is encouraging, but it won’t pass a GOP Congress. Her support of outsourcing American jobs, particulate to H1bs, is discouraging. And she needs to make it clear she would replace King with someone supportive of teachers. So far, details are emerging, but she needs more to counter her high untrustworthiness ratings. Trump is losing in key swing states and fading. But Hillary is a weak candidate and her hold on the electoral college lead could quickly change by November. In this election, I keep asking myself “is this the best our system can offer?”.
Hillary is a neoliberal. Her views on labor differ from yours and mine Vale Math.
Abigail,
I never understood the difference between neoliberal and neoconservative. There is a world of difference between Hillary and the Donald on every issue.
Neo liberal right wing economic policy neo conservative has come to be associated with foreign policy. It would have been nice to have had a better choice. But with Hillary will have the option to box her in, to be more progressive than she ever intended to be . It will be quite a task .
Abigail Shure, Vale Math
Hillary mentioned Unions 3 or 4 times during that economic speech, in a positive manner.
The Donald loves Unions but supports Right to Work , The republican platform calls for repeal of prevailing wage . They frame that as a civil rights issue just like their assault on education.
If Trump is elected and works with the Republican majority, the Labor movement will be a foot note in history. Depending on what day of the week it is he loves H1B’s and thinks we need more of them .Because Americans are paid too much. And just personally hired some more.
So unless as Chomsky stated your(my/NY) State is a blow out for Clinton. I will vote for Hillary then throw my guts up. Then comes the hard work of regaining the party of the people. Although at 65, I would prefer not to have mass demonstrations in Washington until March. The Political Revolution would not have been easy with Bernie at the helm it will be more difficult with Clinton . It will be just as necessary.
Clinton must be dragged to the left ,kicking and screaming and the Republicans defeated in congress.
Joel, agreed.
If Trump is elected, every progressive hope will be crashed.
If Clinton is elected, she must be pressed from the left on every issue. She will tack to the center for the general election, but after, the left must remind her everyday about her promises and her platform.
Join Bernie’s revolution. Change must come from the bottom. That means every legislature, every mayor, every local and state office. A state like NC, for example, must be liberated from the iron grip of the Tea Party, which is a destructive force that serves narrow corporate interests.
Joel,
I played my daughter Reagan’s shining city speech after its frequent mention during the conventions. In it, she noticed the far right roots of the tea party and now Trump supporters. She will be voting next year, but beginning to understand politics. All my kids are challenged to question everything and argue with reason.
That being said, we do not give Hillary a pass. She is a terribly flawed candidate and cannot be trusted. The skirting of legality now with Clinton Foundation beings back the stench of the squishy, slippery Clinton administration where every phrase is carefully worded. Close reading is a must with the Clintons.
But, yes, Trump is insane. He is the most dangerous politician since McCarthy, and even worse. He has no shame. But his followers, many well-educated making over $75,000/yr, are angry and feel cheated. Hillary and the establishment Democrats seem to be incapable of fully understanding the Trump movement, or the rise of Bernie. Here in Ohio, the Democrats learned the hard lessons of hubris and complacency. I don’t want that repeated at the national level.
Vale Math.
You and me both. And I agree with everything you said. In 1980 I voted in a similarly ambiguous election . When my candidate lost I said oh well , good reddens ,maybe it was for the best. Nine months later I was urging my closest friend not to cross a picket line . He lost his job as an Air Traffic Controller . Elections do have consequences, Jimmy Carter looks “pretty! pretty! good”, now. Reagan did not have majorities in both houses.
Somebody above mentioned gin. I’ll need something stronger in November.
How is Hillary going to be “boxed in”? One counter indicator (of many), is Sen. Sherrod Brown, listed as a “progressive”. (1) He wants Ohio to get $71 mil. from the US Dept. of Ed. to expand charter schools, in the state. (2) If he wanted a Democratic majority in the Senate, he has a funny way of showing it. The Dayton Daily News reported Brown is chummy with Republican incumbent Portman and to this point, Brown refuses to endorse his fellow Democrat, for the Senate. (3) Reportedly, Hillary is sharing few of her resources with down ballot candidates.
IMO, Democrats like the excuse, “But, for the Koch’s…”
I don’t see many Berners supporting Trump. That would go against everything Bernie stands for. The best way for Clinton to get Bernie supporters is not to try to scare them with how terrible Trump would be as President. It would be to make her case for how good she would be. How about promising not to take PAC and super PAC money if she wins and gets a chance at a second term? How about an unequivocal guarantee that she will not approve the TPP? How about a plan to close for profit prisons? How about coming out on the side of the NAACP, Black Lives Matter and Journey for Justice and demanding a moratorium against new charter schools? I’ll bet things like these would really help.
Steven,
Are you ok with all the money Hillary has taken to date?
I am okay with Hillary raising money. If she doesn’t, she can’t buy TV ads or pay campaign staff. Until the federal government finances campaigns, requires networks to provide free space, and shortens the campaign, fundraising is necessary and those who donate the most get extra access. It is not fair but it won’t change unless the laws are changed
Obama could help her by pulling the TPP off the table . Call the White House and tell him that. There are not many Bernie supporters who will vote for Trump. The danger is that they stay home or vote Green in swing states .
Sadly there are many Trump supporters who would have overcome there xenophobia to vote for Bernie . Bernie’s positive populist message appealed to them.
Steve Siinger…although I generally agree with you, and with your excellent posts on our writers consortium, I disagree about “scaring Berners”. We are both Bernie leftovers, as are many here, but all the Clinton misdeeds, and there are way too many, do not add up to the tRump history of mob involvement, stealing from his workers, not paying his bills, rampant bigotry, and his wildly egregious statements as a candidate.
We should all be terrified at the prospect of tRump as our Prez.
I have posted Noam Chomsky’s views, and Down With Tyranny article, below, which both specify tRumps history. His kids, who may seem All American, are in reality clones of him. Daughter Ivanka even put her pink dress on sale the night she introduced him at his convention. According to net reports, she sold out of 5K of the model in her retail clothing business where most things are Made in China. She made a ton of money on the Repub donors dime.
They too, at least the three oldest, have been involved in many of his frauds (particularly real estate) and all are elititst liars in the mold of their whacko father….all anyone needs to do is read about it.
BTW, his father Frank, was indeed involved with the KKK…see the articles.
I don’t mean to say that Trump isn’t scary. He is. But we need positive reasons to vote for someone. It’s not enough to say I’m voting for Hillary solely because she’s not Trump. As to campaign cash, I agree with Diane. But Bernie has shown it doesn’t have to be this way. It’s too late to do much this election season, but it might go a long way for Clinton to commit to getting money out of politics by swearing not to accept Big Money in the next cycle. Personally, I am okay with people voting for Clinton. I am okay with people voting for Stein. I am even okay with Johnson. But I am not okay with Trump. I think we have to take a step back and let people decide. Whoever wins, there will be plenty for us to do in January to keep her/him honest.
Agree Steve…but am sick of hearing how young Hillary worked for children…old ‘Billary’ has/have so many flaws (that as a Berner, I spent the past year pointing out) that I can only point to tRumps far more extreme behaviors over his lifetime.
With Trump’s willful ignorance, the choice between them is clear. Trump claimed in a national debate that his sister – a judge – had signed bills that were controversial, and defended her. That’s right: in Trumpworld, judges sign bills.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-on-the-separation-of-powers-judges-sign-bills/article/2001315
Reich’s pandering on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC will not play well with Sanders supporters, the vast majority of whom see right through it. The absurd ideas that they will voter for Trump or will just stay home, well that’s just pathetic. Trumps appeal to Sanders voters is a non starter and is designed to enhance his image among his own base by claiming similarity to Sanders policy positions, an obviously false position that becomes clear when one examines the Republican Party platform, a thing few on the right have apparently done. We must ignore the threadbare Trump clownshow and instead focus on the owners of the circus who are distracting the nation with it. They, who seek to ride Trumps coat tails into power are the actual threat, Trump is just their carnival barker, their court jester. For example, just look at the education plank of their platform, it doubles down on all of the worst aspects of Obama’s ed policy. Trump claims to be against the Common Core, but the platform fully embraces it. Instead of continuing to focus on the Trump sideshow, the DNC and the Clinton campaign should be pointing out that what Trump is saying to the base is the opposite of what Trumps backers and the usual suspects of the Republican Party will put in place, the very corruption and toxic policies that Trumps base is hoping he will bury in a shallow grave. Mr. Reich, that is what you should be focused on rather than this silly pandering and fear mongering. No one is fooled.
Reich is merely pointing out exactly what you said .
“that what Trump is saying to the base is the opposite of what Trumps backers and the usual suspects of the Republican Party will put in place”
He is telling ME!!!!!!!! a Bernie supporter who devoted time and money to his campaign ,that too much is at stake to let Trump win.
Those young voters I met at Washington Square,at Greenpoint, need convincing to be lessor of two evils voters. Including one of my three adult children.
lesser
This is the system we have, we are always choosing between the lesser of 2 evils, sometimes between two very despicable people. We are choosing the lesser dunderhead from city council all they way up to the presidency. It’s been this way forever. The 2 parties control everything, it’s almost impossible for independents and 3rd parties to make a dent in the system. You can opt out, not vote or vote 3rd party. In NJ, I had to choose between Corzine and Christie. Sure, Corzine was flawed (and probably corrupt in his life after the governorship) but Christie has been an absolute horror show. I voted for Corzine and then Buono for CC’s 2nd term, so don’t blame me. It’s going to be DT or HRC, I choose to have an influence, a voice, a vote that will block the far worse candidate (in my opinion).
It’s been that way forever, and yet it gets progressively worse, with the political “Center” pushed inexorably to the Right, so that what once were far-Right, beyond the pale positions have become “Centrist.”
This is no argument to vote for Donnie, just sayin’ that it’s the fatal flaw in Lesser Evilism: we now have the government we were warned against a generation ago, despite having voted for the Lesser Evil each time, sometimes winning elections, but consistently losing on policy and controlling the terms of debate.
Something is going to upset that dynamic, if it is not already underway. The question is whether it cleaves toward democracy and broad civic engagement among working people – for example, to save public education from the hostile takeover of so-called reform – or toward increased inequality, authoritarianism, militarism (in support of that inequality) and broad civic distraction/misdirection.
Trump does appeal to Bernie supporters in one very big way – he will change the broken system. Granted , he will do so in an irresponsible manner, likely giving us something worse- but he will tear it down. Look at how the elites from across the board are attacking him, from both parties, Wall St., and the media.
Bernie would also change the broken system, but in a much more responsible way.
Hillary will just be more of the same.
Vale Math is correct, “People are angry and fearful. They want change, not Obama 2.0 in the form of Clinton.”
I won’t be voting for either of them.
Yes, Trump will change the system. He will lower the tax rates of corporations and the top earners. He will eliminate environmental regulations because he says climate change is a hoax. He will appoint Supreme Court justices who are determined to roll back Roe V. Wade. He will encourage nuclear proliferation. He will bring back torture. He will build a Wall to keep out Latinos. He will ban immigration from Muslim countries. He will protect the 1%.
He does not appeal to Bernie supporters ,however some of his own supporters want to see the system brought down and would have voted for Bernie had Trump not gotten the nomination. I have stated this before. I would vote for Trump, if I thought it would lead to tearing down the system. It will lead to the destruction and complete domination of working class Americans. Go to any state that has gone Republican, look what has happened to education, to labor, to the poor. Don’t drink the Kool Aid, go drink the led contaminated water. A Trump presidency with Republican majorities will set us back almost a hundred years for decades.
Here is the Noam Chomsky report…it agrees with Robert Reich…and most of the Bernie supporters who are realistic about beating tRump.
Noam Chomsky’s 8-Point Rationale for Voting for the Lesser Evil Presidential Candidate
Critics of “lesser evil voting” should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted.
By John Halle, Noam Chomsky / Noam Chomsky’s Official Site
August 6,
“Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for the left in that any form of participation or non participation appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians. The position outlined below is that which many regard as the most effective response to this quadrennial Hobson’s choice, namely the so-called “lesser evil” voting strategy or LEV. Simply put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, where you must, one votes for the “lesser evil” Democrat.
Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain background stipulations with respect to the points below. The first is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the “electoral extravaganza” should be regarded as provisional. This is most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by citing the claim that Clinton’s foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump.
In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump’s foreign policy is preferable, most of us not already convinced that that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a discussion involving this statement. Furthermore, insofar as this is the fact of the matter, following the logic through seems to require a vote for Trump, though it’s a bit hard to know whether those making this suggestion are intending it seriously.
Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4). The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.
While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that the politics of moral witness can become indistinguishable from narcissistic self-agrandizement, this is substantially more harsh than what was intended and harsher than what is merited. That said, those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed “moral” basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case.
A third criticism of LEV equates it with a passive acquiescence to the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism, usually deriving from those who have lost the appetite for radical change. It is surely the case that some of those endorsing LEV are doing so in bad faith-cynical functionaries whose objective is to promote capitulation to a system which they are invested in protecting. Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonably accused of having made their peace with the establishment. Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awareness that frivolous and poorly considered electoral decisions impose a cost, their memories extending to the ultra-left faction of the peace movement having minimized the comparative dangers of the Nixon presidency during the 1968 elections. The result was six years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia and also a predictable fracture of the left setting it up for its ultimate collapse during the backlash decades to follow.
The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting the dominance of the political system under the management of the two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center, which, now in opposition can posture as the “reasonable” alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right.
A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the movement which now seems to be materializing.
Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest, but also competing for office in potentially winnable races. The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle.
*****
1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.
2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.
3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.
4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.
5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.
6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.
7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.
8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.”
Noam Chomsky is institute professor emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His newest book is Who Rules the World? (Metropolitan Books, 2016). His website is http://www.chomsky.info.
Suggest everyone read this link about tRump…and watch the Amy Goodman interview video.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/08/more-revelations-on-donald-aka.html
Item 4 and 6 is enough .
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/bill-clinton-laureate-for-profit-college-pay-226971
Yesterday I said Rudy Giuliani would be Attorney General , add this appointment. “Trump indicated that if elected he “would love to bring my friend Carl Icahn” to his administration as Treasury Secretary.” fill in the rest of the cabinet.
But labor is the focus of the post.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/19383/the_strike_at_trumps_atlantic_city_casino_is_a_flashpoint_for_the_entire_la
Not that anyone will read this nor pay attention but Robert Reich’s statements above are EXACTLY what I have been posting for some time.
I might add that now even the corporate heads are afraid of the monster they have created in the form of Trump.
How ANYONE would vote to put him in charge of our nuclear arsenal, a man of his temperament or rather his intemperance is beyond belief.
Gordon
“corporate heads are afraid of the monster they have created in the form of Trump.”
You would see Ryan, McConnell and Prebus heading for the Hills a while back. I suspect that corporate America is not all that upset about an Oligarch cutting taxes and regulation,while burying the Union movement for good. Which is more important to him his business dealings or the White House,hands down the great deal he negotiates on trade will ensure that his supply chain remains untouched. Perhaps Gates wont get Patent protection. They cover all bases and will be happy either way. Unless progressives drag her kicking and screaming to the left.
I think the place he is least dangerous is the Bomb , he will be AWOL
allowing others to run foreign policy.
Hillary could make it easier for voters to support her by (1) denouncing Betsy DeVos’ K-12 privatizing. According to Western Michigan Politics, July 23, 2016, Betsy DeVos (gave) the Clintons nearly $1 mil., over the past 6 years. (2) denouncing John Podesto’s call for the wealthy to donate to politicians promoting the plutocratic ed. agenda (video in which Podesto presented a united front with Jeb Bush and Chester Finn). (3) Ann O’Leary could meet with Network for Public Education (she had time to meet with the deep-pocketed Camp Philos crowd).
I understand a Trump presidency would lead to world destruction.
I may be very gullible with life in general.
I really need to be cultivated in Western education.
I have NOT seemed to grasp western philosophy in the image of how leader should be (public expectation), or must be (personal expectation) for the past 40 years.
I grew up to acknowledge that the higher you climb, the harder you fall.
For this reason alone, being a leader, I was taught that a leader must be:
1) strong in physical body = healthy so that leaders can sustain their strategy under pressure.
2) knowledgeable in a logical mind = intelligent and compassionate so that leaders can foresee the danger that will come to them, their family, their country and their people who trust their lives in their leaders.
3) spiritual in humanity and civilization = belief in forgiveness and a second chance for all.
In short, LEADERS are exemplary in all aspects in body, mind and spirit so that leaders EARN RESPECT from people, subordinates and other leaders for their nobility, their intelligence and their compassion.
Please note that there are 5 levels in everything in life for people and for things. We have the choice to live with whatever and whoever can bring us a bit tolerable breathing in order to live with HOPE for THE LONG TERM TO FIGHT FOR A JUST SOCIETY. Back2basic.