So, now that Bernie has been defeated and Hillary is the Democratic candidate for President, what are we to do? (I'm only speaking for myself at this point.)
Hillary is awful. But Trump is beyond awful.
And a large voice keeps whispering, "Remember 2000!" (Yep, I voted for Nader in 2000. I have at times regretted that.*)
In recent months, I have tended to agree with Robert Reich in this debate. Reich is following Bernie's lead by supporting the only person who can stop Trump, namely, Hillary. That makes a lot of sense.
But, again, Hillary is truly awful.** And, increasingly, it appears that she might be too weak to beat the Donald. And so it is difficult to listen to the likes of Mr. Hedges—who insists on viewing Hillary, correctly I think, as a tool of big business and the 1 percenters—and not feel powerfully moved to join him in screaming, No! Hillary, goddamit, is the enemy.
Reich and Sanders are exercising pragmatism. They're holding their noses and giving Hillary the big Embrace in order to defeat Trump. (I suspect that the Embracers constitute a continuum, with Reich on the left and Bernie way on the right. Reich can live with his compromise; Bernie probably wants to off himself. Look at him.)
That feels like betrayal, man. It just does.
Well, it is.
To embrace or not to embrace. Each position is compelling. Neither can be denied.
Or so it seems to me.
*For years after the 2000 election, upon noting the latest Bushian atrocity, my colleague Rebecca W would point her finger at me and intone, "So you had to vote for Nader, didn't you!" (But see this.)
**I have never been among those who "can't stand Hillary." My problem with her fundamentally concern her actions and her policies—e.g., her hawkish record [drones, Libya, Iraq] and her friendliness to Wall Street.
Cornel West: Why I Endorse Green Party's Jill Stein Over "Neoliberal Disaster" Hillary Clinton:
Nader on Hillary Clinton:
Chomsky on Supporting Sanders & Why He Would Vote for Clinton Against Trump in a Swing State:
The Democrats have learned nothing: