Reversal of the reversal
Have a 5 minute video in which Elizabeth Warren tells Bill Moyers about an encounter she had with Hillary Clinton back during the Clinton administration.
The credit card companies wanted a bill tightening up bankruptcy laws, to their benefit at the expense of the people they bombard with credit card offers. Warren wrote an op ed about it and Hillary Clinton asked to meet with her. They met, Warren explained about the bill, Clinton got it instantly, and H Clinton got B Clinton to reverse his position on the bill, and veto it. Good stuff.
But then H Clinton became a senator.
You know who spends the most money (pays the biggest bribes) in DC? Not the oil lobby, not the soft toy manufacturers. The consumer credit industry.
If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination I’m voting for green party candidate Jill Stein. People can tell me I’m wasting my vote all they want, but I think those who vote for corrupt politicians (because they are voting for the “lesser of two evils”) are the ones who are wasting their vote.
It doesn’t matter if the stated positions of a candidate are ideologically aligned with you, if that candidate will only do the minimal actions necessary to make themselves look good in front of the public. Meanwhile, they betray the voters by making backroom deals that work against the best interest of their constituency. This is especially egregious in my opinion when it comes to economic and foreign policy. People literally lose their lives over this stuff when people like Clinton vote for wars or deregulating financial industries.
I think Warren is great, and I definitely think she has a point about the influence of money in politics.
But there’s more to the story here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/22/1423815/-Something-I-Heard-About-Hillary-Clinton-is-Untrue-The-Bankruptcy-Bill-Edition
In particular, when the bill was finally passed in 2005 it was changed from a version that Clinton supported, and while Clinton was not present for that vote she says she would have voted against it. But it passed easily and thanks in no small part to the 2004 election results.
Now did the earlier version of the bill that she did support still have many provisions that are objectionable? I’m sure. But this is not a simplistic case of “Hillz thought one thing, then Wall Street bought her and she immediately thought the exact opposite” narrative that some Sanders supporters are trying to make this out to be.
If you’re in a swing state, not voting is a vote for a Republican. Period. End of subject. If you’re in a safe state, climb down off your high horse, because nobody fucking cares about your Holy Purity, and you can vote for whatever candidate you feel like.
Christ.
Yup. Argue with the math, not with the people telling you your third party vote is pointless or worse.
I’m not planning on not voting. I’m going to vote for a candidate who I at least mostly align with ideologically and who I believe has the moral virtue to actually try and do the things they promised.
I could never vote for a warhawk like Clinton. I could never live with myself if I voted for a person I had very good reason to believe would enact foreign policy decisions that would lead to violent conflict over resources or economic policies that will push even more people into bankruptcy and poverty. Anyways, we’ve got every reason to believe Clinton would be almost exactly like Obama and it’s hard to express the disaster that has been, more torture, more indefinite detentions, more invasions, more ruinous trade agreements, more baffling energy policy decisions, more sucking up to morally bankrupt foreign governments because they have oil or other valuable natural resources, more trillion dollar bailouts to the financial sector and at least a dozen other things that haven’t immediately jumped to the forefront of my mind.
Winner-take-all systems almost inevitably lead to something like our current state of affairs since we end up with the dilemma you mentioned. I do advocate publicly for a proportional representation electoral system, but besides that, the only way to break out of the pathetic excuse that is our two party government is to vote for candidates outside of it en mass. So many problems in the US government are at least partially due to a lack of accountability. Power without accountability leads to corruption and other abuses of that power. So many parts of American society and infrastructure are crumbling. I’ve first-hand experienced the spikes in college tuition, the drops in inflation adjusted wages, the funerals of my high school friends who died on battlefields or in convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan and the changes in behavior and the injuries of the survivors who came home afterwards, spending years unemployed having to scrape by on occasional odd jobs and the charity of others, and watching several of my middle aged friends lose almost all their assets in the 2008 financial crisis while the damn institutions and individuals who caused it in the first place made it out without any negative consequences. Add on top of that, all the death, destruction and financial ruin the US has sown about the world in the last 15 years that I only read about, watched on YouTube, talked about in the political science and environmental courses I’ve taken, or heard about from friends and at least for me it’s easy to see why I’m mad as hell. I want to hold the politicians’ (and other responsible parties) feet to the fire, not hold my nose and vote for one of them.
To clarify a bit, I think that American voters end up not holding their politicians accountable in elections because they believe the candidate from the other major party are worse. This allows the politicians to do a lot of very immoral acts because as long as they don’t do anything too bad, they’re supposedly still better than their one electable opponent.
While I understand the sentiment, I get very tired of people telling those who don’t like the major party candidate to get off their high horse. Are we really that far gone that we can’t allow people to have principles? Do we forget that the reason we keep getting mediocre candidates is that we keep voting for them? I will stand behind any voter who stands on principle because that is what is needed to truly reform the system. They are not necessarily the ones being “holy”. I hear tons of sanctimonious purity in those who accuse Nader voters of electing Dubya, forgetting that Gore ran a rather tepid campaign. So please stop telling people how to vote. Try persuading them that your preferred candidate is the better candidate, and don’t blame them for the fact that the Democratic Party seems determined to put on the mantle of Reagan.
That being said, I would say this to people in swing states who are thinking about voting third party: there are several Supreme Court justices who are aging, some in their 80s. It’s possible that whoever wins this election will have a lock on the court for a long time. I know for a fact that I don’t want it to be Cruz or Rubio, both anti-choice and anti-evolution. I am in a deep red state; the electoral college system assures that my vote will go to the Republican no matter who I vote for. If I were in a swing state, I would have no doubt about voting for the Democrat.
There are only two potential presidential candidates who aren’t establishment; Sanders and Trump
Trump can’t be bought because he’s already got gazillions. Sanders can’t be purchased either because he’s too principled.
If either makes it to the White House, the *corridors* of power in Washington will undergo one hell of an enema.
Trump is a traitor to his class, whereas Sanders aims to rein in that same class.
Jesus. It’s the 2000 election all over again. I have vivid, unpleasant memories of people saying things exactly like that outburst of PatrickG’s @ 3.
As if we’re just not allowed to say which candidate we think is better than which.
Why would we not be allowed to do that? Why would that not be part of the process? Why does doing it invoke such vicious insults?
I lost friends this way in 2000 – friends who threw screaming red-faced rage-fits over what should be just ordinary political discussion.
It’s not a high horse. It’s not holy purity. I’m allowed to present a video clip of Elizabeth Warren talking about bankruptcy law and Hillary Clinton’s relationship to same without being accused of preening myself on my holy purity.
There seems to be a very personal, emotional attachment to one’s political preferences. It seems to preclude reason. In the last 24 hours I’ve been ridiculed and mocked for just expressing mild concern about the policy proposals of one of the candidates, along the lines of “I am uncertain how proposal X could ever be adequately funded, or that it is even a good idea”. For that, I received a response that was not anything like “well, the funding could come from Y and here are some studies that seem to indicate that it’s a beneficial proposal”—rather, I was told that I’m an idiot who is “in the tank” for the opposition candidate. That sort of reaction doesn’t endear me to the candidate in question. It’s counter productive, if you want to win people to your preference.
There is a very good reason to vote on principles, namely the idea of the political mandate. If a candidate wins by a huge margin, they always interpret that as a mandate from the electorate to carry out whatever policy proposals they had run upon, and the opposition sees it the same and is humbled in the face of a loss in such a way. In that sense, voter tallies really do matter in the bigger picture, even if your vote technically won’t count since you live in a state that will elect a person that you don’t prefer. We know that George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and he reacted by taking a light step in his first few months in office. Of course, 9/11 changed everything, but the overall point stands. Moreover, I don’t think that any of us want to be that person saying that sticking to one’s reasonable principles is somehow a bad thing. It’s not.
I guess I’m experiencing a failure to empathize with that, because it’s so alien to me. I almost never have any personal, emotional attachment to any presidential candidate. They all leave me pretty cold, every time, frankly.
@Matthew Ostergren #5
Yes, this. Have you read Gaming the Vote by William Poundstone? I recommend it to everyone. It’s about the math behind voting systems. Most people have no idea.
If there were a realistic chance of that happening it might help–if it led to third parties gaining power–but then the two current biggies would just be replaced by two others, and the cycle would repeat.
Meanwhile, I don’t think that chance is realistic.
I wish more people would. I wish some of this passion would be redirected to changing the electoral system, where it could actually do some good. Of course we should express our preferences. But third parties are not viable in the US Presidential race, and a vote for one is a vote for the opposing Big Party. Want to fix that? Work for change in the voting system.
MrFancyPants #10
I suspect that where politicians are concerned, “political mandate” is a pious fiction. Shrub squeaked by and started talking “mandate” immediately. At least that’s how I remember it.
I heartily second this recommendation. A truly interesting book, and an eye-opener.
@ Ophelia:
You did read the comment I was responding to, yes? That wasn’t directed at people expressing preferences. That was responding to the very first comment of the thread, i.e. this:
Literally someone climbing up on a high horse to lecture the rest of us about how pure they are.
Note that this isn’t in reference to the primary. I’m not angry about someone expressing their preferences in a primary. I’m angry at someone who will vote against everyone’s best interests after the primary.
So yeah, I’m having flashbacks to 2000 as well. This is Naderism all over again. And for fuck’s sake, there really was a difference between Gore and Bush. There was a difference between McCain and Obama, and Romney and Obama, despite all the people telling us Obama was a sell-out who betrayed “hope and change”. There is a difference between Clinton and Trump/Cruz/Rubio. Voting third party in the general election is basically saying one doesn’t give a fuck about the enormous harm letting a Republican into the White House would do (with almost guaranteed Congressional majorities, at that!).
So: this isn’t about “preference”, and I’m bewildered that you took my comment that way. This is about someone directly stating in the first comment of the thread that they will not vote against the Republicans if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. No ifs, ands, or buts. Just flat out stating it.
That’s fucking wrong. It’s fucking immoral. Unless, of course, one lives in a reliably safe state. Then go ahead, knock yourself out. As I said above.
@ Lady Mondegreen:
Just seconding your desire for various electoral reforms. Even before truly systemic changes like proportional voting, we should be pushing for more low-hanging fruit like IRV , at which point my rage against people voting third party would go away. Vote third-party all you want with IRV! :)
Add to that same day registration, making election day a national (paid) holiday, guaranteeing early voting for federal elections, eliminating voter id laws, etc., etc., etc.
Patrick G @ 14 –
Well yes I did read the comment but it wasn’t clear to me that you were responding only to that.
Also…
Really? Literally? How do you know? Did you see the horse, and Matthew Ostergren on the horse?
And what do you mean “to lecture the rest of us about how pure they are”? Where do you get that? Where are the exact words in which Matthew does that? It seems to me he was just stating reasons for not voting for Hillary Clinton.
I’ll grant you misuse of the word “literally”. On the main point:
It’s one thing to say “I cannot vote for Clinton under any circumstances”. It’s quite another to tell others that voting for Clinton in order to prevent a Republican victory is a wasted vote. Again, I quote:
I have no illusions about Clinton, nor am I here to try and make a case for her.
What I care about is people wandering around and saying “they’re all corrupt! your vote doesn’t matter!”. That kind of blatant disregard for degree helped get us GWB putting Alioto and Roberts on the Supreme Court. Even leaving aside the Florida recount, turnout nationwide was terrible, and part of that was the constant refrain of “meh, it doesn’t matter, they’re all the same”. Nader was the most obvious (and harmful) proponent of this, but there were plenty of people saying it, and decent evidence that people stayed home because they believed it.
If nothing else matters in this election, the Supreme Court matters. Citizens United. Voting Rights Act gutted. Massively weakening the ACA. And on and on and on. Hand-waving that away is what makes me mount my metaphorical purity horse.
We cannot afford a Republican in the White House with Congressional majorities, and a sizable group of people on the internet seem to be quite content with that happening as long as they don’t have to, what, soil themselves with a vote for Clinton in the event she wins the nomination. Urging people not to vote for “corrupt politicians” in the general election — when the bloody primary is barely underway! — when so much is at stake very much reads like lecturing others from a self-perceived moral high ground (i.e. a horse).
Matthew was not simply saying “Here are reasons X, Y, Z I am not voting for Hillary”, he was saying a vote for Hillary in the general election is a wasted vote cast on behalf of corruption and betrayal — people like Hillary kill! That’s what made me see red, and what makes me think Matthew was purity posturing, for the reasons above.
Your mileage, as they say, may vary.
I don’t think there’s more to say, other than that my new exercise regimen of “five minutes of cardiovascular exercise before commenting on the internet” should prevent me from posting while enraged. Or at all, for that matter.
The trouble is, I wanted to be able to talk about this as a matter of fact claims about Hillary Clinton, and opinions on those fact claims, but not as a matter of vote this way or another way. I don’t want a whole avalanche of knowing strategy advice, because I really just don’t care about that, and I think it distracts people from almost everything that matters.
I’ll keep that in mind in future here, and refrain from commenting when the next person starts telling people not to vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. :P
It was a general comment, not just for you.
I suppose it’s not reasonable to expect that, but all the same, I really would like to be able to discuss reported facts and opinions without getting into the horse race. People can’t seem to talk about the latter without getting incredibly prescriptive.
As I say, I’ll remember that here in future. Won’t be me who derails next time. :)
I apologize as well. I’m just not thrilled at the current prospects considering how badly things have gone for me and so many people I know.
Thanks you two. You class up the joint.
If you want to get into passionate campaign discussion there’s always the Withdrawing Room. Maybe I’ll post a new one.
@ Matthew Ostergren:
Ophelia threw down the gauntlet, but if you’re down… might be nice to have an actual conversation — with someone who doesn’t share my views — about the Presidential election in a semi-private space*. We may come out feeling exactly the same way, but at least we’ll both
be more set in our wayshave to substantively argue what we believe.Not tonight, though. I’ve used up my exercise credits (see end of comment #17: it’s actually working! I’m preemptively exercising so I can be an asshole on the internet!).
* In that The Withdrawing Room is not Facebook, B&W main threads, or [Insert Place on the Internet Here]
I give up. If Ophelia feels merciful, she’ll respond to the plaintive Cleanup On Aisle Me and edit me into looking like a normal person who can work these newfangled keyboards.
Hahahaha – I was babbling on Facebook yesterday and it took me THREE TRIES until on the 4th I triumphantly managed to hit the apostrophe key.
‘
Difficulty level 10.
@PatrickG
Sure, I wouldn’t mind further discussion on the subject.