If you care about public education, don’t vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.
Johnson told Politico that he does not believe in public education. He does not understand that the entire community must pay for education, and no one will vote for a bond issue
GARY JOHNSON’S EDUCATION IDEAS: The Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson is selling himself as the golden alternative in an election year of unpopular major-party presidential candidates. Double-digit poll numbers and a couple of newspaper endorsements have brought unprecedented attention to the former governor of New Mexico – a self-professed “fringe” candidate campaigning on a platform of small government and social liberalism. On education, Johnson’s most popular proposal is to disband the Department of Education entirely. POLITICO’s Mel Leonor caught up with Johnson to talk about his education proposals and the Libertarian ideal for American schools: http://politico.pro/2c85QJC
– We asked Johnson what the federal government’s role is in public education. “I don’t see one,” he responded. The third-party candidate, who strongly supported universal vouchers in New Mexico, is a backer of full-blown school choice, which he believes would kick-start competition and, in turn, drive better performance. “I do think ultimately it would be the end of traditional public schools and that would be for the better. Public schools are not going to go away, but they are going to embrace the innovation that would occur if students had a choice.” On the student debt crisis, Johnson backs a federal investment to refinance existing debt at lower interest rates to relieve students hurt by a crisis “caused” by the federal government: “If there were no guaranteed government student loans, higher education would be much more affordable.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
If you care about public education, the only candidate to vote for is Jill Stein. Hillary might not be as vocal about it (and, in fact, she’s good at throwing rhetorical bones to her “base” [sic]) but Hillary’s policies really won’t be that much different from Obama’s which haven’t been that much different than what Johnson is talking about.
LikeLike
I’m willing to take a chance on Hillary being much better on public education than Stein is. First of all, her VP pick was one of the few Dems who wasn’t reactively pro-charter. Secondly, it is clear by her remarks that she actually understands the issues and hasn’t bought into the pro-charter rhetoric.
Frankly, I think Hillary Clinton is as good as Elizabeth Warren on this. Warren doesn’t seem very interested and repeats the inane lines of the reformers. Clinton’s very few remarks are much more nuanced. Maybe she will be as bad as Obama, but voting for Stein when you have a chance at a thoughtful education President seems very short sighted.
LikeLike
“Thoughtful education president”?? The woman who is best friends with Eli Broad and who put John Podesta in charge of her campaign??? Seriously, how can people overlook this kind of stuff? She’s been a charter supporter her entire career going back to her days as first lady in Arkansas. Leopards, spots, you know.
LikeLike
Dienne, that isn’t true. She got a lot more money for public schools in Arkansas. She made a trade off for it, but compare that to people whose goal is simply to starve public schools of so much money so they can criticize them for failure. That was never Hillary Clinton.
Also, look at Tim Kaine’s wife and compare their support for public schools in Virginia with other Democrats who bought the reform lies hook, line and sinker. Frankly, Elizabeth Warren isn’t impressing me yet.
If Jill Stein wants to run against Elizabeth Warren in the next election for Mass Senator I will support her as the better defender of public education. But I certainly won’t vote for her to allow one of the scariest men in the country – and the most anti-public school ever — to become President. Especially when the alternative is likely to be even better than Obama and not worse. And even if worse, not even in the same universe as Trump.
LikeLike
Gary Johnson was the one of the worse Governors the State of New Mexico ever had. People need to read his record as a Governor, on public education, higher education, social services, etc. He is a backward thinking person who has done nothing significant since he left the Governor position in 2003. He did absolutely nothing to help the people of New Mexico. He will do absolutely nothing to help the people of the United States live better lives. Voting for Johnson would be the same as voting for Trump — both will take this nation back to the dark ages.
LikeLike
“Gary Johnson was the one of the worse Governors the State of New Mexico ever had.”
From: “Gary Johnson’s Hard Right Record”
Read the rest of the article to see how he operated as Gov of New Mexico.
LikeLike
Libertarianism: a mythical thought experiment in governance embraced mostly by well-off young men living in their parent’s basement, proselytizing the writings of a second-rate Russian writer, all while living off the hard work and sacrifice of prior generations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me gusta.
LikeLike
ouch
LikeLike
Libertarianism is a vile toxic cult that ends up being great for billionaires and the corporations and not ordinary Americans. Libertarians want to gut most of the rules and regulations that protect us from the corporations. They want to privatize everything and they believe that education is the responsibility of the parents, period. Parents should home school or send their kids to private schools, no more publicly funded public schools. Johnson is against public sector unions and collective bargaining by teachers or any public employee. Not to mention that Gary ALEPPO Johnson acts as if he has a loose screw (that tongue sticking out while talking incident, very bizarre). Kiss goodbye to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA under president Johnson (or president Trump).
http://freebeacon.com/politics/cringe-worthy-gary-johnson-sticks-tongue-interview/
LikeLike
Saint Jill Stein? Not according to Russian greens, from Raw Story: Writing on Facebook, two prominent Russian environmentalists have taken Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein to task for meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin without criticism, saying her silence “silences our struggle.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/russian-greens-slam-stein-for-cozying-up-to-putin-your-silence-on-his-crimes-silences-our-struggle/
LikeLike
Thanks for yet another Stein hit piece. From the article: “But how can this new “collaborative dialogue” be possible when Mr. Putin has deliberately built a system based on corruption, injustice, falsification of elections, and violation of human rights and international law?”
Seriously? Like Obama hasn’t deliberately built a system based on corruption, injustice, and violation of human rights and international law? And Hillary won’t continue more of the same? Let’s take the log out of our own eyes before we point out the speck in others’. The U.S. is the largest purveyor of weapons, violence and war, all for the sake of profit. And look what we do to people who point that out (Manning, Snowden, for starters, many others in that boat).
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike
Here is Jill Stein’s response to that “hit piece”
“Jill Stein responds to Russian Environmentalists”
LikeLike
“Johnson backs a federal investment to refinance existing debt at lower interest rates”
As if the interest rate was the biggest problem when the tuition is $50K/year.
“I cannot afford to go to Harvard because the interest rates on student loans are too high!”.
Do these people ever calculate anything, or are just too busy to talk and have no 2 minutes to spend with numbers.
LikeLike
“The third-party candidate, who strongly supported universal vouchers in New Mexico, is a backer of full-blown school choice, which he believes would kick-start competition and, in turn, drive better performance. “I do think ultimately it would be the end of traditional public schools and that would be for the better. Public schools are not going to go away, ”
The arrogance is breathtaking.
Remember- Johnson has no earthly idea if the public would benefit from this- it’s pure ideological belief.
But he’s willing to risk it, because why should he care? He doesn’t have any skin in the game at all. He doesn’t live in any of these communities and he’s already decided public schools are inferior to private schools.
It’s like privatizing Social Security. The people who promote that are always financially secure. If it fails, so what?
He doesn’t value public schools so he makes the ridiculous assumption that no one else does either. It’s easy to gamble when you didn’t value what you’re gambling in the first place.
LikeLike
One of the arguments ed reformers make is that it will be just like the higher education system.
The higher education system isn’t “equitable” at all. I hope that’s not the model for public schools. The higher education system directs huge numbers of lower class students to under-funded community colleges. is that what we can look forward to when they finish this privatization agenda? Because that isn’t working out so well for low income people.
LikeLike
“The higher education system isn’t “equitable” at all. ”
So the whole process is going in the wrong direction: they try to make K-12 schools operate like higher ed instead of the other way around: make higher ed free, and let colleges (or the public?) elect their own board.
LikeLike
I do give him credit for admitting the goal is the end of public schools.
Would that we could get more of that kind of honesty from other ed reform politicians.
LikeLike
I agree don’t vote for Johnson. . . or Clinton. . . or Trump. Vote third party, vote Green, Vote Jill Stein.
LikeLike
Conservatives make me laugh in the attacks on public schools, because they also bemoan the lack of community and continuity for children.
Where do they think that comes from? What is the ONE thing people have in common in thousands of places all over the country? Public schools. It’s the common thread.
They will regret throwing that away. There is nothing to replace it where I live, nothing that even comes close to attempting to serve the whole community and it’s generations – it’s a common history.
Every decade or so we get some genius at the state level who wants to “consolidate” smaller districts with larger districts. The pitch to smaller districts is “efficiency!” – you’ll get more of a menu of options with economies of scale!
Every time smaller districts beat them back because they value their schools and they know the school is the center of the community. One would think they would get it at some point- the schools are more than contract service providers! why is this so hard to understand?
LikeLike
Agree with you Chiara that consolidation is a bad idea.
LikeLike
Agree with you on this, Diane. This guy has no chance to be president but a vote for him rather than Hillary is not just a wasted voted. Voting for him , increases the possibility that a highly competent, deeply committed, caring and experience person will lose to a bully and bigot.
LikeLike
Just the opposite, Joe. Thompson will be pulling a lot more votes from the Trumpster than from Clinton. At least that is what I am seeing from many politically right friends, generally voters for the Rethugs, that I know.
LikeLike
Duane, any person who does not vote for Hillary increases the chances that she will lose.
LikeLike
I don’t understand that logic, Joe. If Johnson supporters would have (and I contend more likely than not-a 9/10 chance) not voted for him, they would have voted for the Trumpster then how could one say that that Johnson vote would have “increased the chances that the sHillary loses”. If anything a vote for Johnson is actually a vote that might help Clinton.
LikeLike
Anyone who votes for a candidate who says “What’s Aleppo?” In mid-2016 is voting for ignorance.
Kind of like saying “what’s Berlin?” In 1943.
Ok for a 7-year-old. Not ok for a presidential candidate.
LikeLike
I thoroughly concur, Diane!
LikeLike
What about voters who vote for Johnson but in their minds they are not voting for him but are voting against Trump and Hillary? The Pew Research Center reported that 55-percent of people who plan to vote for Trump say they aren’t voting for him but are voting against Hillary. Twisted logic, I know.
LikeLike
They have been fooled into thinking there is no difference in Clinton and Trump. Which is the biggest lie of this campaign fostered by Rove/Murdoch/ and the like because they know that very foolish people will believe it.
There is a difference. An enormous difference. Maybe a protest vote when Romney ran against Obama, or when Obama ran against McCain would have been somewhat understandable. But not in this election.
LikeLike
It’s not a matter that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton – you can stop with that nonsense. The thing is, Trump being a sick joke does not somehow make Hillary a decent human being. She is responsible for a great deal of death and destruction globally and financial destruction domestically. I will not simply vote against someone if it means voting for someone I can’t otherwise stomach. I will vote for the best candidate.
LikeLike
Dienne, you allege that Hillary Clinton is directly responsible for a lot of suffering in the world. Did she accomplish all of this on her own, all by herself? If so, prove it with links to reputable sources. And I refuse to read any other opinionated posts. I want direct links to the facts, facts, facts, facts, facts, facts, not opinions, that offer solid evidence without a reasonable doubt that HRC is guilty of your individual allegations as if she ordered the deaths, suffering and destruction all by herself.
LikeLike
John Oliver did a great job showing the difference between Trump and Clinton in his most recent episode of HBO’s Last Week Tonight. Stick with the video to the end and count the reasons that are used to compare the two. Out only three days and just on YouTube, this episode of John Oliver’s show has racked up almost 5 million views. I wonder if Trump can take Oliver or HBO to court in Canada and/or the U.S.
This video should be required before anyone is allowed to vote in the U.S.
LikeLike
Lloyd, several times on this blog I have invited you to read the original hardback version of her book HARD CHOICES to read, in her own words, her bragging about her role in Libya. Have you done so? No? I’ll wait.
LikeLike
I’m not interested in reading books written by or about any of the major players in any election, because I see them as crap propaganda, PR, often biased and misleading.
Find me hard evidence, facts that would survive an objection in a court of law for anything that HRC has been accused of. I’m not interested in vigilante witch hunts based on flimsy allegations and biased opinions and twisted interpretations of what even your hate target wrote about herself.
In addition, you might be surprised to read that as a former Marine and Vietnam Vet with my own locked up home arsenal of firearms and ammunition that I’m more of a hawk than a pacifist, but I refuse to vote for most if not all GOP candidates because they don’t represent me; they represent billionaires, the Trumps of the world, and corporate America. I support a livable wage, a healthy social security, reasonably priced health care for everyone, labor unions, women’s rights, and due process for every worker. I’m also anti artificial intelligence and replacing humans jobs with robots and automation.
LikeLike
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/01/hillarys-role-in-honduran-coup-sunk-us-relations-with-latin-america-to-a-new-low/
Hillary’s role in Honduras also makes an appearance in HARD CHOICES.
LikeLike
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/how-hillary-helped-ruin-haiti.html
LikeLike
BTW, what’s this bullsh– about her doing it all by herself? Where did I ever claim that? Himmler didn’t run the Third Reich by himself either – so I guess he’s innocent? Hillary’s role in pushing the Obama administration toward war and coup and economic devastation is clearly documented, including by her own hand. Being part of death and destruction, especially in a leading role – even if not the sole leading role – is despicable. Period.
LikeLike
Here is one argument
I am voting for Hillary because I don’t want Trump, the more evil of the two, to be president.
Here is another
I don’t want to vote for Hillary either because she is evil enough to start yet another war, and then I would myself responsible for that.
but then there is the third argument
If you don’t vote for Hillary, and many people do the same, Hillary will not have enough support and Trump may end up being the president. How guilty would you feel then?
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
“How guilty would you feel then?”
Not at all guilty. If Hillary can’t even bother to address the actual progressives while claiming “progressive” bona fides, if she can’t even throw a bone like coming out against fracking, if she constantly needs to talk down to the “dreamers” who “can’t get things done”, and if she loses to Trump of all people because of that – that’s on her, not me. Either Hillary needs my vote or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, that’s fine, she – and her supporters – can continue to spit in my face. But then I’ll have nothing to feel guilty about, right? She never needed my vote. Or else she does need my vote, in which case she – and her supporters – damn well better earn it.
LikeLike
Máté Wierdl,
Even though your question is directed at Dienne I will answer it also. Will not feel guilty at all because if for some strange, unaccounted for reason the Trumpster would win (which I highly doubt), I know this country will weather whatever he could do. Hell, we survived Georgie the Least for eight years, yes even with all his SC right wing judges.
So no, my voting my conscience and who I believe has the best ideas to lead this country out of the morass that the duopoly has brought us up to this point in time and space, I will not feel “guilty”. Hell I got over that “feeling guilty” crap a long time ago that the nuns pounded into our heads in Catholic grade school. Rejected that nonsense just like I reject the duopoly’s candidates now!!
LikeLike
Dienne…There IS no best candidate. They all are terrible in their own ways.
LikeLike
No, we had a good candidate. Hillary, her supporters and the DNC rigged the primary away from him. We still have a good candidate, albeit one with almost non-existent chances due, in large part, to the constant smears from the candidate I’m told I have to vote for even though she and her supporters screwed over the one decent candidate we had (who, incidentally, would have beaten Trump hands down, so if not having Trump as president was really the concern, maybe Hillary and her supporters should have thought about that in February through May).
LikeLike
That good candidate says to vote for Hillary. Case Closed.
LikeLike
Sorry, not case closed. Part of what made said candidate such a good candidate is that it was never about him. It was about the movement, which I don’t think said candidate ever understood himself.
LikeLike
Actually Bernie did say it wasn’t about him but about building a progressive movement.
LikeLike
NO! No they are not all “terrible in their own ways”. Tell me how Jill Stein “is terrible in her own way”, please!
LikeLike
Trump is a clear and present danger with flashing red lights, alarms blaring and emergency flares soaring into the heavens. Clinton is not close to Trump in toxicity and volatility. This is a very close election cycle, it will be decided by a few votes. Voting 3rd party or not voting throws votes to Trump, in all likelihood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I heard Jill Stein supports capitalism, which is the biggest single biggest source of human suffering. If true, that is pretty damning. I can’t vote for any candidate who doesn’t pledge to end capitalism and doesn’t have solid Marxist-Leninist bona fides.
LikeLike
Very funny!
LikeLike
“Voting 3rd party or not voting throws votes to Trump, in all likelihood.”
Horse manure. No, voting 3rd party doesn’t throw votes to Trump. How the hell can that be? Now if you are attempting a “spoiler” argument, first, spoiler arguments are specious at best, outright lies and nonsense at worst.
Second, if anything a vote for Johnson is a vote that more likely than not would have gone to the Trumpster and not to the sHillary.
Where do these Clintonites come up with this nonsense. Are they channeling Karl Rove?
LikeLike
DUANE you and I have repeatedly conducted this argument. I do not appreciate you calling my viewpoint “horse manure” here or on FB or anywhere. I lived through the election in MA when we had our first black senator elected; and I KNOW and remember what happened. I lived through the Goldwater era (and George Wallace)…. the assassination of RFK and how it altered the election results… and the Perot campaign; and the Nader year…. My experience of these elections and the fact that there are complex, unpredictable occurrences, still tell me not to vote for Stein or Johnson. I have repeatedly given you my reasons and your rigidity in one viewpoint and calling my viewpoint “horse manure” is not helpful in any discussion. I believe Bernie who has far more experience in the political world than either you or I… I will follow Bernie’s lead on this issue.
LikeLike
Jean,
I stand by what I wrote. Said nothing about “your viewpoint”.
By the way I quoted from Joe’s post. Had nothing to do with you Jean. Nothing. Wasn’t even thinking about you. (and I don’t intend that as a mean remark, Jean, just a statement of fact.) Look at Joe’s last line of the post directly above my post to which you so vehemently (which is fine by me, I can handle it) oppose. I haven’t told you to do anything as the post was not directed to you.
Have a glass of wine and chill (now that one is directed at you in a humorous fashion, please take it for what I mean).
LikeLike
you need to see, Duane, what happened if I voted for the senator (as I did) and my favorite candidate on the other ticket/ballot lost out …. this is the reality of elections. When there is a banquet and you are offered fish or chicken, you cannot insist on YOUR version of steak. The democratic republic, semi-sovereign vote, the electoral college. You cannot knock these down over night; and it is irresponsible to say you want to destroy the system without a reasonable alternative (I could read the implication that you want to destroy the government but I don’t think you really do; and neither did Bernie…his advice is for creating something better . He is not going to punish all the rest of us because he didn’t “win” at the primary/convention. Maybe we all want to see improvements but burning down the colleges is not the way to improve anything… even though we got that message from the republicans under Bush when they said in Washington “the teacher unions are terrorists” and the “teachers colleges need to be bombed”…. I remember hearing those comments from high up officials and to is irresponsible.)
LikeLike
You’re not being offered fish or chicken. You’re being offered dog food or barf. You’re willing to accept the dog food because it’s better than the barf. Sorry, I don’t eat either one.
LikeLike
Dienne, calm down. Don’t vote. Vote for Jill or Gary. It’s okay.
In November, either Donald a trump or Hillary Clinto will be elected president. No one else will be.
You are free to abstain.
LikeLike
Am I starving? Dog food, no question about it.
LikeLike
Holy pizza. You’re telling me to calm down??? Every single day you post apocalyptic fear-mongering articles about the evils of Donald Trump and how the world ends the day he’s elected. I try – honestly I do – to abstain from such articles. But sometimes I simply can’t let the BS slide.
LikeLike
Dienne,
Posting what Trump says or promises to do is not fear monger inn. It’s frightening reality. Yes, he will appoint judges who will elimininate a woman’s right to make reproductive choices and eliminate gay marriage. Yes, he will give states $20 billion for school privatization. Yes, he will build a wall. Yes, he will try to promote stop-and-frisk nationally, although it failed and was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in New York. Yes, he will okay torture. Yes, he will encourage nuclear proliferation. I’m not fear monger ink. That’s what he says he will do.
LikeLike
Dienne,
Yes, vote for Stein. You support her. But I do not see your many posts convincing anyone. I admire your all-in support of the Green Party, but there is too small a chance Stein will win. As much as watching Hillary campaign is like watching paint dry, Trump is clearly unfit, unstable, and unintelligent. I cannot vote and risk him winning.
LikeLike
Stein is polling at 2%. She can win if both Clinton and Trump withdraw, also Johnson.
LikeLike
The mistake third party candidates make is that they start seriously campaigning only after the primaries. If people saw a large number of supporters behind a third party candidate during the primaries (or before), they would then be willing to vote for them, because they would see the candidate as competitive.
Or third party candidates are not allowed to campaign before the primaries?
LikeLike
I don’t see ANY of them withdrawing, especially Trump or Hillary. Jill Stein at 2% doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance. Neither does Johnson/Weld and I don’t think he’s polling much better. For better or worse, the only 2 “viable” candidates are Bad and Worse. Lord help us all if either one gets elected.
LikeLike
Except it appears that if we use John Oliver’s comparison of Trump vs Hillary’s scandals, and use raisins to measure that gap between bad and worse, that gap is HUGE, the distance from Earth to Mars, or should I saw Venus to Mars?
LikeLike
“. . .this is the reality of elections.”
That is YOUR reality of elections, not mine. My perceptions and take on elections happens to be different than yours. That is all.
“You cannot knock these down over night; and it is irresponsible to say you want to destroy the system without a reasonable alternative. . . ”
You were right, Jean, to add, “but I don’t think you really do”. But why make that absurd statement to begin with then? I have never said anything near your strawman statement.
But it does remind me of what I’ve heard many admins say to me (from the afterword of my book):
“A tactic of administrators or any powers that be to silence those bold enough to critique their policies and practices, even after agreeing with one’s critique, is “Well, you’ve criticized what we are doing but “What is your solution?” usually said with such tone and emphasis as if they have now trapped the perpetrator in a debate dilemma. The administrator knows that it is impossible to come up with a feasible solution to the critiques in the minute or two they allot you to do so, solving his/her problem of the critical thinker in their employ. He/She walks away smug in his/her confidence that he/she won that verbal battle. And you’re left standing there thinking “What a smug ass bastard!”
LikeLike
In Duane’s defense: the scientific method’s reality is that in trying to solve a problem, one eliminates the possible bad solutions. This usually is 99% of the whole job. Then you find the correct solution—if you are lucky. So no, we don’t have to have the correct solution before we can criticize a bad solution. In fact, we are obliged to do so.
LikeLike
On the other hand, the scientific method may not be the most appropriate technique for deciding how to cast one’s vote.
LikeLike
Nice gravatar, by the way.
LikeLike
Thanks Máté Wierdl for the defense. And F L E R P ! You are also correct. Not all human spheres/sectors require nor may need scientific precision to be possible to come up with a choice in options as in the electoral realm.
LikeLike
I should have said “even in the scientific method …”. In general, eliminating bad choices is allowed, and doesn’t have to be accompanied by the description of the correct choice. If I don’t like what Bill Gates is doing to my school, I certainly can say so without offering an alternative plan for Bill Gates what to do with his money instead. If a law (like tax laws) allows some antidemocratic process, I certainly can say so without offering a concrete improvement to the law. If I don’t like a film, I certainly can say so without being required to give a lecture on how to make a good film. Etc.
All these criticisms can be useful, and they are not automatically “non-constructive”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly!
And to re-iterate what I said about those demanding solutions “Who am I to tell others how to handle their educational dilemmas other than one should maintain a “fidelity to truth” attitude?”
To continue with what follows my quote from my forthcoming book on that “fidelity to truth attitude”:
So I offer no specific answers but I do offer some general guidelines in struggling to lessen the many injustices that current educational malpractices entail:
• Correctly identify malpractices that hinder the teaching and learning process and that cause harm to or do injustice to students. (see just a few identified above).
• Immediately reject those malpractices, cease doing them as soon as is practically possible.
• Maintain a “fidelity to truth” attitude in identifying those malpractices and instituting new practices.
• Focus on inputs and resources. Are they adequate to provide that all children have access to a learning environment in which they can learn to “savor the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the fruits of their own industry.”
• Involve all, interested community members, parents, students, teachers, aides, other support personnel, administrators and the school board in revising and formulating new policies and practices. . .
LikeLike
Johnson just had another Aleppo moment on steroids, could not name one publication he read.
Oops wrong Republican he can’t see Russia from his back yard. Neither can he think of one world leader he admired. The admired part wasn’t the thing that stumped him it was naming a world leader.
LikeLike
I copy here Chomsky’s 8 reasons to vote for the lesser evil.
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.
LikeLike