An Endorsement for Hillary Clinton

For the sake of argument, I will concede most of what has been said against Hillary Clinton. I am not interested in a tit-for-tat about who--Clinton or Trump--is more loathsome on a personal level. Even if you do not share my opinion on that question, you can still agree with me that a vote for Clinton serves a worthwhile purpose.

If you read no further than this paragraph, consider these three main reasons to support Clinton over Trump:

1. Clinton has experience and knowledge relevant to the office; Trump does not.

2. Clinton does not evince religious or ethnic bigotry; Trump does.

3. Clinton believes in the basic equality of all people, particularly in terms of sex; it is clear that Trump does not.

1. A candidate for public office, especially the highest office in the country, should have considerable experience in public service. Experience limited to the private sector does not adequately prepare a person for the presidency. At a minimum, a candidate for president should have served as a mayor, governor, congressional representative, senator, or in some other prominent public position. Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, she has a long record of service in public office, and Donald Trump has none.

It has been said that we should welcome an outsider as an alternative to the typical corrupt politicians, but Trump is not really an outsider. He has a long history of cozy relationships with high government and corporate officials. Moreover, an outsider can still have experience in public office. A plurality of Republican voters chose someone who they thought represented them, but Trump comes from a position of immense privilege, building upon his inherited wealth via exploitation of the very kind of people who voted for him.

Perhaps you still think that Trump is a better choice than Clinton, or that Trump and Clinton are equally unsatisfactory. If Clinton's public policy experience and knowledge do not convince you that she is preferrable to Trump, consider some of the ideological differences.

2. Trump believes that people can be barred from entering the country based on their religion. He called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". I know that there are some Americans who agree with Trump, but if you are not one of them, you should be aware that Clinton, for all her faults, does not propose to exclude people based on religion. Such a policy would contravene a fundamental principle upon which our nation was built. We do not discriminate based on religion, and we certainly do not judge entire groups--religious, ethnic, or otherwise--based on the actions of a few. Clinton understands this, and Trump does not.

If you are not impressed with this, perhaps you will consider the fact that Trump accused an American-born judge of being unfit to decide a case simply because the judge's parents were from Mexico. Trump assumed that the judge would be biased because of Trump's proposed policies to curb illegal immigration. Again, this blatant bigotry distinguishes Trump from Clinton. This is true--and crucial--even if all the accusations made against Clinton are true.

3. Finally, Trump bragged about actions that amount to sexual assault. This continued a long pattern of misogynistic statements and behavior. Whatever you can say about Clinton, she has not been accused of forcing herself on anyone in a sexual manner. At a minimum, a president should be someone who believes in respecting people's basic dignity.

Perhaps you agree that a president should have prior public service experience, that a president should not be someone who endorses discrimination based on religion or ethnic background, and that a president should not be someone who has not sexually harassed and assaulted people, but you still are not convinced that Clinton is a better choice than Trump. Some are disgusted by Trump but just as disgusted by Clinton. Some simply will not vote; others will vote for a third-party or independent candidate. It has been suggested that I do the same, but even if Sanders, my first choice, had not endorsed Clinton, I still would decline to write in Sanders' name.

In other essays, I have praised electoral systems that provide third-party and independent candidates a meaningful chance. In France, people can vote for their favorite candidate in the first round; if their favorite candidate loses, they can vote for the lesser evil in the second round. Unfortunately, we do not have two general election rounds. We have one round, in which it is virtually assured that one of two major-party candidates will succeed. If left-leaning people are split between two or more candidates, Trump will win easily, as long as he has enough right-leaning people behind him. I will not be part of this. Instead, I will vote for a candidate who, though flawed, has sufficient experience, knowledge, tolerance, and basic human decency to be president.  

The Case against Donald Trump

(Before we even get to the many problems with his policies)

For the sake of argument, I am conceding every point in the case against Hillary Clinton, but there is a good chance that her rival, Donald Trump, will become our next president. Before that happens, I think it's important that people know the things that the man has said and done. I include only those accusations with strong or undeniable evidence, followed by supporting links.

Trump's wrongdoings

The Trump University scam: everything from deliberately misleading people to telling outright lies in order to take their money for useless education. Among the many deceptions, he falsely told people that he had hand-picked the instructors.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432010/trump-university-scam

Suggesting that a judge's Mexican heritage (a judge born and raised in Indiana) made the judge biased against Trump in a case:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/05/27/trump-attacks-federal-judge-in-trump-u-case/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/06/03/donald-trump-judge-mexican-trump-university-case-lead-sot.cnn

Found guilty of cheating unions on pension funds, using underpaid and mistreated illegal immigrants to get around the union obligations:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/27/nyregion/judge-says-trump-tower-builders-cheated-union-on-pension-funds.html
And, yes, Trump knew that the workers were here illegally: http://time.com/4465744/donald-trump-undocumented-workers/

Falsely accusing former Miss Universe of being in a pornographic video: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/298645-trump-check-out-sex-tape-of-former-miss-universe
Here's the fact check, concluding that his claim is "mostly false":
http://www.snopes.com/alicia-machado-adult-star/

Taking an illegal loan from his father for his casino. Trump was fined for it:
http://articles.philly.com/1991-04-09/news/25780577_1_casino-control-act-donald-trump-casino-owners

Antitrust violation, charged by the Federal Trade Commission:
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1988/Trump-Agrees-To-Pay-%24750-000-Penalty-To-Settle-Antitrust-Lawsuit/id-54ea0dc590fc97d9e9e86c65336649a1

Refusing to pay his bills to small businesses and workers: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
(Trump's excuse is that the people did a poor job, but in some cases he hired the same people again. This clearly indicates that he was stiffing them.)

Another Mass Shooting, Another Probably-Futile Plea for Sensible Gun Laws

Every time a mass shooting occurs in the U.S., new life is given to discussion of gun control, even if the only consequence is a reiteration of tired and unnuanced arguments on both sides of the debate. It is sad that we seriously discuss gun control only after mass shootings, because the vast majority of gun homicides do not occur in mass shootings, but in individual tragedies that kill far more people in the aggregate while attracting far less public attention. I always feel a sense of hopelessness and pointlessness when I write about the issue, since virtually nothing meaningful is ever done to reduce the frequency of such attacks, and no death count is ever high enough to give gun enthusiasts doubts about the awesomeness (in the commonly used sense) of the weapons used.
    
It is suggested that it is not the weapons, but how they are used. By this logic, an AR-15 is better than a handgun, since it will more easily stop a killer. Yes, someone might have used a weapon of that type to kill the Orlando shooter, during which time they might have also killed some people by accident. In any case, wouldn't it be better if the shooter didn't have such a powerful weapon to begin with? You might say that this is fanciful, but there are many countries in which mass shootings of this kind rarely or never happen, and if this is not because those countries have far fewer guns than we do in the U.S., some very convincing alternative explanation is called for and has not been provided.

I am convinced that few gun-rights proponents will ever concede this point; there are always plausible ways to deny it. Yet even if gun-rights proponents cannot be convinced to accept any new gun legislation, perhaps we can at least identify the problem of gun violence precisely and get the arguments right.

I was tempted to say that I hate guns, but that is not exactly true. I am not interested in them, and, yes, I wish that they did not exist, but I have nothing against people who enjoy firing them for sport, hunting, or self-defense, even if I find it hard to believe that some of the extremely powerful weapons being defended by gun enthusiasts are truly necessary for any of these purposes. So I do not hate guns, but I do hate the way that the fanatical devotion to guns colors people's beliefs about gun control. I hate the mass paranoia and delusion regarding any limits on the sale of firearms. I hate the fact that absolutism and extremism prevents the enactment of laws that could reduce the number of people killed by people with guns.

I am not picking on gun enthusiasts. I detest absolutism in general, and absolutism is not limited to the right wing. Absolutism is essentially the denial of any need for trade-offs or compromise, even when important competing values are at stake. Absolutism is the denial of the very idea of competing values; there is only one value, and that is _____. Some people are free-speech absolutists; others are civil liberties absolutists. Like gun-rights absolutists, they are not bothered by the fact that their absolutism can mean massive loss of human life. All that matters is that the government should not limit their freedom in any way.

Suppose that we decided to reject gun-rights absolutism. Suppose that, as a country, we were serious about gun control. What measures would we take? 
    
Background checks are not enough. Guns used in mass shootings are often purchased legally, with background checks. Of course, we should require background checks for all gun sales, but we should do so knowing that such a measure, even joined with other moderate gun legislation, would still leave us with a uniquely (among wealthy democracies) high level of gun violence.

Banning assault weapons would not be enough, either. Most gun homicides are committed with handguns. Of course, we should save as many lives as we can, but if we were serious about reducing gun violence, we would have to eliminate handguns as well.
 
It is true that bans would not necessarily prevent people from getting guns. But a ban would limit the supply, making guns more difficult to obtain, thus reducing the quantity of guns purchased, including by criminals.
    
It is also probably true that a gun ban would leave some law-abiding people defenseless when facing armed criminals. But there would be fewer armed criminals. Gun-rights proponents tend to speak of criminals as though criminals were a group of universally brilliant, clever people, who would be able to circumvent any laws, no matter how well-enforced. It is more likely true that like any group of actors, some criminals are better at what they do than others, so some would be able to get the weapons they seek, while others would have to resort to less-powerful weapons. Countries with fewer guns also have criminals, but those countries still have less gun violence. It is possible that those countries have less gun violence for reasons having nothing to do with the absence of guns, but the absence of guns seems at least plausible as a factor. But being fanatical in one's devotion to guns appears to make it impossible to realize (or, at least, acknowledge) this. 
    
While I detest the paranoia and delusion regarding any kind of gun control, I also must acknowledge that, if I had the power, my actions would probably justify that paranoia and prove the delusion to be prophetic. Indeed, I would stop the sale of handguns and assault weapons. I would do as the governments of the U.K. and Australia did--not only stop sales, but collect and destroy the guns already in existence. I would not take away all firearms, but I would restrict the ones most commonly used to kill innocent people.
    
This is almost certain not to happen. We have not even been able to get universal background checks or a renewal of the ban on assault weapons. It is illogical of gun enthusiasts to suppose that, after gaining just enough support for these measures (in the most optimistic scenario for gun-control proponents), gun-control proponents would then succeed in the much less popular goal of banning all guns. Slipperly-slope arguments are questionable as a rule, but especially so in this case, since support for gun ownership is widespread and fervent, while support for total confiscation and prohibition is limited. It might be possible to overcome the NRA's scare campaign and enact some sensible gun legislation, and, even if the odds are small, we should get on with trying.   

From a Sanders Supporter, an Enthusiastic Endorsement for Clinton

Like many other left-leaning people, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. But more people voted for his rival, Hillary Clinton. This is true regardless of the valid complaints against the undemocratic nature of the primary process--the superdelegates and such. The fact remains that more people voted for Clinton than Sanders, so Clinton rightfully wins the nomination.

Now that this has been decided, it is important that left-leaning people fully recognize the choice in front of them. The next president is either going to be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. No one else has enough people willing to vote for them to actually win the electoral vote. There are some people on the left so hostile to Clinton that they would withhold their support from the Democratic nominee even if doing so meant placing Donald Trump in the White House. I will not even attempt to be diplomatic in my response to this attitude: it is irresponsible and dangerous.

Those who would refuse to support the Democratic nominee should recall 2000, when Al Gore lost the presidency by a few hundred votes in one state. (He won more votes than his opponent in the country as a whole, but, appallingly, that is not decisive.) If even a small percentage of those who voted for Ralph Nader had instead voted for Al Gore, we would not have had a war in Iraq. We would have had a president who took some action on climate change. We would have had a president who took steps to extend health insurance coverage to millions of people. We would have had greater tax revenues and thus more funds to support social programs for the poor. We would have had two more moderate-to-liberal justices on the Supreme Court instead of two more right-wing ones. Instead, we had George Bush and Dick Cheney, who gave us the Iraq war, justifications for torture, complete inaction on climate change and health care, tax cuts for rich people, a Supreme Court more hostile to the weak and vulnerable, and many other things far more unwelcome to a progressive mind than what Gore would have delivered. That is, we saw a devastating refutation of the idea that there was no value in having the Democrat take the office instead of the Republican.
    
The stakes are even higher now. George Bush, at least, had some government experience. He did not seek to persecute immigrants or build a wall across the border. Compared to this year's Republican nominee, Bush appears to be an exemplar of reason, tolerance, and restraint. This is serious. If you are a fellow left-leaning person (and perhaps even if you are not) you do not need me to tell you the details of Trump's bigotry, misogyny, willful ignorance, and gross irresponsibility. We need to keep him out of the White House.

In my essay endorsing Sanders, I stated many reasons for still respecting Clinton. Among other liberal actions, she championed universal health care and challenged sexist expectations for a first lady. Even if all of the facts that constitute the progressives' case against Clinton are true, the hostility toward her is still too severe. She is a well-credentialed, experienced, and knowledgable candidate, and yes, she does represent a liberal philosophy, even if it is not liberal enough for some. I, too, am suspicious of her hawkish inclinations with respect to foreign policy; I, too, am disgusted by her collecting a $675,000 speaking fee from a big corporation. But by any sensible analysis, a Clinton presidency would create a far friendlier environment for progressives than a Trump presidency. 

I understand that people want a more progressive leader in the White House. But until that is a true possibility (and as long as Clinton has the support of most left-leaning people, it is not) the priority needs to be keeping the Republicans (especially this year's nominee) away from the office. Entertain fantasies of a progressive third-party president if you will, but there are simply not enough votes right now to elect one. Keep working on it, by all means, but for now, please, vote for the more liberal electable candidate. That is, the one who does not want to exclude people from the country because of their race or religion. That, alone, is sufficient reason to prefer Clinton to Trump; of course, there are many other reasons. If even one of those reasons matters to you, you have motivation enough to accept Hillary Clinton as the price for keeping possibly the worst presidential candidate in the nation's history out of the White House.     

My Endorsement for President

I have decided whom I am voting for in the Democratic primary, and I might as well share the information on the off chance that an undecided voter might find my arguments convincing. I respect both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders a good deal. I admire Hillary Clinton for being a strong woman in what is still largely a male domain. She fought to provide health care for all Americans back when doing so was even more controversial than it was when Obama did it. She is experienced, knowledgable, and competent. She has a good stage presence and is easy to envision in the role of president. I would certainly vote for her over any of the candidates the Republicans are offering.

But I am voting for Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders is a progressive stalwart. He has championed civil rights, opposed needless wars, fought for working people, and worked for broader prosperity rather than the further enrichment of a few. Sanders is a democratic socialist, which more people are realizing is very different from being a Soviet-style communist. Conservative critics struggle to convincingly justify their opposition to universal social protections such as health care and paid sick leave, and opportunities such as the ability to go to college without facing overwhelming work and debt obligations. What democratic socialism boils down to is minimizing the influence of social class on a person's ability to enjoy full economic opportunity. 

Nor am I impressed with the accusation that Sanders wants to make everything free. For one thing, Sanders is not proposing to give people everything they could ever want; all he seeks to do is remove financial barriers to success and provide people with the basics they need to have a chance. People will still have to study and work hard. Besides which, Sanders does not pretend that everything will be free; he has acknowledged that tax increases will be necessary, and not only for the very rich. Yes, things like education and health care have to be paid for, but they should be paid for with taxes, which are levied based on ability to pay, rather than out-of-pocket fees, which require poorer people to pay a larger share of their income.

It is important to be realistic, of course. The United States is a more conservative nation than the countries of Scandinavia, and even nations such as the United Kingdom and France. The full enactment of Sanders' democratic socialist policies is probably impractical here, and Sanders as president of a relatively conservative country, rather than a senator from a very liberal state, will probably recognize this through compromise if not overt concession. Sanders' plans are very costly, indeed. We must consider deficits and the national debt, and there is a limit to how much revenue we can collect by raising taxes. Realistically, it is probably necessary for people to bear some of the cost of health care and higher education out of pocket, but Sanders is apt to push hard for that cost to be lowered for those who have little to spare. Clinton would do so, too, but perhaps not to the same extent. I actually am sympathetic to Clinton's proposal to provide debt-free college conditioned on part-time work; perhaps Sanders could work with Congress to implement a plan of that sort, if he cannot achieve fully-funded tuition for all students.

Sanders and Clinton also differ on policy regarding large financial institutions. Here, too, I endorse Sanders despite finding Clinton's policy more practical. Here, too, I suspect that Sanders will realize, in office, that the problems presented by big banks and corporate greed must be dealt with in a sophisticated way. Sanders, to a greater degree than Clinton, understands the pernicious effect of stratospheric wealth among a few--the utter recklessness, callousness, detachment, and sheer inhumanity that it seems to nurture in some--and that is part of why I support Sanders despite some practical reservations.

On foreign policy, it is Sanders whom I trust to keep the United States out of unnecessary wars. When Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq, Sanders wisely voted against authorization, even when many major Democrats were falling in line with the Republican administration. Military action is sometimes justified, as Sanders acknowledged in voting for the war in Afghanistan; but progressives like Sanders are more cautious than centrists like Clinton about using force. Especially when contemplating a war that will result in massive loss of American lives, the government should be far more cautious than it historically has been.

I must address the issue of Clinton's error in judgment regarding her emails. At times her weak and evasive attempts to justify herself have been more troubling than the initial wrongdoing. While many of the attacks on Hillary Clinton's ethics over the years have been unfounded, some have been valid. This is part of what makes Sanders a more attractive candidate. There has been a remarkable lack of scandal on Sanders' part; virtually all of the criticism directed his way has been properly issue-based, and that is what we should hope to see in a presidential contest. A general election contest involving Hillary Clinton would be less substantive and more personal.

Many other issues demand attention, not all of which I can address here. I think the reasons that I have identified provide ample support for a vote for Sanders.