Making the A

In a recent class meeting, a highly motivated and talented student asked, “Is it possible to get an A in your class?” In responding, I found myself becoming defensive, especially when I recalled that the student already had an A in my class. She had answered her own question and found the answer (I assume) she was looking for, but she wanted more. She wanted the assurance that her current grade would be her final one, if only I could provide some kind of foolproof method for earning the A, like a list of instructions for putting together a piece of furniture from Ikea. Although a literary analysis essay is different from a piece of Ikea furniture in too many ways to make the instruction-manual approach applicable, the student’s point is well-taken now, even if it was not then. She is right to infer that every student, no matter how talented and diligent, operates under the ever-present possibility of seeing a B where they once saw the A, and she is right to hold me responsible for the fact, even if she is (blamelessly) wrong for disputing it.

     I chose this essay’s title purposefully. The A paper is truly made; that is, the A is the result of the author’s creativity, originality, and insight, not the result of the author’s following a formula or instruction manual provided by the instructor. This frustrates many students who covet the A grade, like the student in my introduction. Such students ask, even demand, that the instructor tell the students exactly what they must do to earn the A. The wise instructor shows the students A-level work by their peers or predecessors and invites the students to observe the properties and qualities of the model work, then to examine their own work and modify or add to it to match the quality of the example. The misguided instructor attempts to use the model work as a formula and/or (perhaps because of the inevitable failure of the first resort) accedes to the students’ implicit demand for an A rating for B-level (or even C-level) work. I am guilty of this. In general, I grade papers from half a letter to a whole letter grade higher than they probably merit, mostly because doing so is easier than explaining why the truly deserved grade is the one awarded, which is why I am taking a break from correcting student essays to write an essay of my own--preparing myself to explain to them why they (in most cases) are earning a B or C, rather than continuing to lie to them to make my own life easier. 

     The demanding instructor is not purposefully (or in any sense) hiding the way to earn the A grade. The instructor truly does not know how the student will earn the A grade, because the A students have consistently surprised their teacher. The A students have made observations and inferences that their teacher failed to make in reading the text. The A students have structured their sentences in creative ways and with extensive vocabulary--vocabulary with which, of course, the instructor was familiar, but which impressed the instructor in the way in which it was used. In interpreting a text, the A students have raised possibilities that did not occur to the instructor. How do I, your teacher, tell you how to find something that I do not know is there? 

     Of course, the experienced teacher comes to recognize patterns in A-level work from which the teacher can infer general statements about such work. The teacher then inserts those statements in a rubric template and calls it a day. This still does not teach students how to get the A--because there is no way to teach students how to earn an A. The students must learn by doing, by creating, by working independently--by being their own teacher. 

     From this fact, I draw a controversial and easily misunderstood conclusion: not every student is ready for A-level work, nor is it reasonable to expect otherwise. Perhaps the A student has a certain natural talent for which no amount of teaching can substitute. Perhaps for some students, the B, or even the C, is the best they can do right now, at least in that particular discipline--and perhaps this is perfectly acceptable. If a student does their absolute best and earns a B, do you fault them? If not, why fault yourself if you do the same? 

     Of course, one naturally wishes to do better. I wish to someday run a five-minute mile, or at least a six-minute mile, but so far, even my sincerest efforts have left me twenty seconds short of the more modest of my goals--and for that I am disappointed but not devastated, nor do I consider that my running career is for naught if I never reach my goal. Sometimes the goal is just to get better until your better is your best. And not everyone’s best is the same. For some, the lesson is that their B is both deserved and highly commendable; for others, like the student in my introduction, their A is both deserved and yet somehow unsatisfying, because it is never final. This teacher is at peace with that fact, and, though I doubt my student will ever share this sentiment, my own peace is all I can offer beyond my teaching, which can never offer something that must come from within someone else. 

The Persecution of the White, Male, and Wealthy: How Much of a Problem Is It?



As a white male who never wanted for anything that I could not obtain from my parents in childhood and employment in adulthood, I have never experienced even a hint of the hostility that is alleged to be directed at people like me. Working amid a population that is substantially ethnic minority and low-income, I would have plenty of opportunities to suffer this persecution if it existed. Perhaps I am not as sensitive as I believe I am, or perhaps, as I suspect, the persecution of the white, male, and/or affluent is greatly exaggerated and originates from the margins, rather than the center, of our society; that it occurs sporadically rather than systemically and exacts virtually no toll on the average white male socially, politically, or economically. Of course, personal experience does not necessarily generalize to society, but a reliable body of evidence has convinced me that my benign experience is a common one.  

If I relied on conservative media rather than personal experience and statistical evidence, I would have a very different impression. Today’s technology enables instances of discrimination against whites, males, and wealthy people as well as Christians to be published widely and with great frequency, making such cases appear to be the rule rather than the exception. To be fair, the same phenomenon applies to distorted narratives of the left, but these narratives are told on behalf of groups that have undeniably suffered pervasive discrimination. Many on the right, however, believe that such persecution has been extinguished or is not significant enough to warrant great public attention. Instead, they mainly complain of discrimination against those who belong to the groups that perpetrated (at least in the past) that very persecution. That is, yes, women and people of color suffered inexcusable discrimination in the past, but today the appointed advocates of these groups commit the same offense.

A number of deep flaws undermine this narrative. Whereas the progressive agenda targets institutions that have the broadest reach and greatest economic and political power, conservative complaint focuses on institutions that wield cultural, rather than economic or political, power. An example is academia, especially elite academia, an institution that involves a very small segment of the population and, if anything, perpetuates economic inequality, a phenomenon that conservatives tend to celebrate rather than abhor. Of course, conservatives blame “the media” and Hollywood just as much, but these, too, seem to exercise limited power despite their great scope; note that about half of the population supports Republican candidates for public office (even if all else were equal, why would we expect it to be otherwise?), and Republican-majority states enjoy proportionally more electoral votes than Democratic-majority states, a fact that has not changed despite Republicans’ taking the presidency with fewer votes than their opponents twice in recent history, an event that would catalyze the alleged anti-“real American” revolution if anything would. 

In any case, antipathy toward the rich, white, and/or male does not prevent members of these groups from being disproportionately represented in the highest positions in business and government. If males really operated at a disadvantage in general rather than in limited cases, we would expect more than 20% of federal lawmakers to be women; indeed, we would expect more than 50% to be women. We would similarly expect the ranks of corporate executives to include a majority, rather than a small minority, of women. We would expect women to be paid more than men for the same work; even the most optimistic assessment does not claim that this is true. In addition, we would expect wealthy people, victims of class warfare, to be facing, presently or imminently, an egalitarian revolution; we would not have anticipated the continued concentration of wealth that occurred during the recent liberal Democratic presidency, much less the election of a conservative administration and the reversal of the limited redistributive policies of its predecessor. If searching for evidence of pervasive discrimination against the rich and/or white, we cannot find it where it would seem to hurt the most. The narrow focus of conservative polemics obscures these facts and thereby portrays discrimination against historically privileged groups as pervasive.

Of course, any unjust discrimination deserves remediation, and instances do occur in which a person is treated wrongly for being an affluent white male. It would seem, however, that victims who belong to a historically powerful group can do much of their own advocacy, in contrast to poor people from historically persecuted groups who have depended on government to achieve and maintain the most basic political and economic rights. This does not exonerate those who really do harbor hostility toward people for being white, male, heterosexual, or any combination of historically privileged characteristics, but it does make it curious that so many people consider such hostility to be a serious problem rather than a mere annoyance.

I do not expect a victim, or loved one of a victim, to feel this way in a case in which a man is wrongly accused of rape, or in a case in which a white male who is poor and disadvantaged but stellar in academic and personal merit is denied a spot in an elite university in favor of a minority candidate who happens to have the same or fewer credentials. But if such cases occur relatively infrequently, it would seem an overreaction for any but the victims and their families to consider such cases to be a major social problem requiring a high toll from a limited supply of political energy. Would it not be more appropriate to focus our attention on helping poor people, who have fewer financial resources with which to influence politicians, and people of color who, being members of minority groups, by definition have more opportunities to be discriminated against?

To be sure, some antipathy exists toward people who have characteristics that traditionally have imparted privilege. This does not demonstrate, however, that such characteristics never impart privilege or that they generally subordinate their possessors. Perhaps they do; perhaps I am blissfully ignorant of the severe persecution to which I am subject each day that I encounter society and experience, or think I experience, general civility and kindness as well as economic security, civil liberty, and political freedom. But if so, I need more evidence, and even the admitted instances of bias against people who lack the sympathy of the left—such as conservative academics—do not provide that evidence. Conservatives, please convince me, and make your case heavier on the statistic and lighter on the anecdote.

Sources

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2017

http://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-diversity-data/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/who-suffers-most-from-rape-and-sexual

The Health Care Baby and Bathwater

When Obamacare was enacted, I saw a large decrease in my insurance premium and out-of-pocket expenses for doctor's visits and medications. My income was low enough for me to receive large subsidies, which, combined with mandates for certain services to be covered, meant very low copays and no charge for prescriptions. As someone who requires regular doctor visits and medication, I found Obamacare to be a major relief. Without the law, I would be unable afford the $275 per month that this generic medication costs.   

Like many others, I saw my premium increase dramatically in the second year of my enrollment, but, now in my third year of exchange coverage, my premium is still only about the same as it was before Obamacare, when I also had to pay a large fee to see my doctor and was charged $600 for one month's supply of medication.     

Nonetheless, I am mindful that many have found Obamacare to be a major burden. Contrary to President Obama's promises, they had to change their doctor and insurance plan, and their premiums increased tremendously. They resented having to pay for services, such as birth control, that they did not personally need. Many people found their incomes too high for them to qualify for substantial, or any, subsidies.  

People in the latter situation have good reason to be angry. They are completely justified in demanding change. It does sadden and anger me, however, that this is what it took for people to become intensely dissatisfied with the American health care system. As long as they were paying affordable premiums and receiving health care that satisfied their needs, most were content to maintain a health care system that made insurance and adequate care unavailable to millions of people.  

Indeed, the pre-Obamacare system was worse in many ways than the current system is even for those who are rightly upset. The old system allowed people to be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. People who could neither afford insurance nor qualify for assistance went without insurance and without the health care they needed. Many young adults aged out of their parents' insurance plans and could not afford their own. 

Many people, including those critical of Obamacare, did appreciate the law's fixes for those problems. Still, when, prior to the law, they personally did not suffer from the system's deficiencies, they had no motivation to push for changes. But, now that they are affected by adverse changes in the system, they expect legislators to act. Indeed, some are willing to see the law abolished even with no immediate replacement.  

The reasonable dissatisfaction of uncovered people prior to Obamacare, and covered-but-gouged people now, points to the need for a system that covers everyone on equitable terms. Indeed, people's self-interested motivations for their views on health care might ultimately prove beneficial. The law's adverse consequences might persuade them to support either a radically different system or, at least, a reformed one that treats everyone fairly rather than providing health care to some by placing undue burdens on others. 

When, newly enrolled in Obamacare, I saw a charge of $0.00 for my next prescription, I felt guilty at first, knowing that other people were paying substantially more to make this relief possible for people like me. Then I remembered all the money I had paid toward Social Security and Medicare over the years. I remembered the federal and state income taxes withheld from my meager paychecks. I still felt happy to have helped pay for the care of elderly, poor, and disabled people even during the years when I had to forgo health care myself, earning too much to qualify for federal assistance but too little to pay for all the care I needed. But I also decided not to feel guilty for finally being included in the system into which I was paying, even if I was paying less than people who made (but had to pay) more. I did not feel bad for accepting help to get the care I needed in order to be a productive member of society.  

I still would like to see one health care system that covers everyone equally: a single-payer system that funds all medically necessary care through federal taxes. I'm not certain that such a system is politically viable or economically feasible, but if it could somehow overcome these hurdles, it would seem to be the most equitable system and, even if it required higher taxes, would relieve middle-income people of the burden of escalating premiums. Unlike in the truly socialized British system, people would retain their ability to choose their doctor; unlike in the private but restrictive Canadian system, people would retain their ability to elect to pay for care privately, the same way people can elect to send their children to private schools but can also choose to send their children to public schools tuition-free. Presumably, these differences would partially alleviate the problem of appallingly long waiting times that plague those other systems.  

Against my nature, I am choosing to be optimistic that middle-class anger about health care will lead to universally positive changes in the system; that a now-Republican-led government will support health care for all with the same commitment they have had for repealing the first serious attempt at providing it. Republicans have long said that they have a better way to achieve those parts of Obamacare that people like but eliminate the parts that people do not like. So far they have shown no more competence in achieving the desired results than the Democrats did. America's first experiment with (near-)universal health care has had mixed results. Going forward on this issue, let's be sure to preserve the welcome ones.     

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.