Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Hillary Clinton
Showing Original Post only (View all)"Why this socialist is for Hillary." [View all]
A friend of mine who was moved to shift his support from Bernie to Hillary this year, asked me to post this post in here for him. He was "bumped" from our group during his shift in opinion, but his post was on a thread in GDP, where it didn't get any attention, and he thought others in here might appreciate it.
Edit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2058336
I've come to believe Hillary is more progressive than she's had to appear.
But she (and Bill for that matter) has had to play the game to get to this point, because if she doesn't then the Republican wins and we get more fascism. How much of her failings from a progressive view are the result of that? I'd daresay a lot. Nevertheless, she's certainly advocating a lot of progressive things right now, both socially and economically. Is she sincere? I'd like to think so. Yes, she does engage in a lot of noncommittal lawyerspeak which can be frustrating as hell, and i don't think very many of her supporters think she's perfect, and a lot of us would like to see her evolve further on several issues, but again that is part of the game and the only way to change that is to change the game, and not electing her over Trump might change the game...to something even worse.
The key thing is that Hillary is *persuadable*. Yes she evolves on issues when it's politically expedient (or rather, she takes public stands on issues when it's politically safe/ expedient, I'm sure the woman who marched in a Pride Parade in the 90s had no real issue with marriage equality at any point). But what is she evolving in response to? The people. Triangulation works both ways, after all. If she seems too friendly with neoliberalism (which I think she is), it's because the forces combating neoliberalism are too weak. Yes, it's more satisfying to say you are not compromising on certain progressive stands, but if you end up being stuck at 8.75 because you wouldn't budge from 15, how many workers have you really helped?
Furthermore, a lot of my support for Hillary is based on her intersectional coalition, which I'm actually impressed with seeing her starkly opposite 2008 campaign (which was naked white identity politics). Revolutions aren't made by individual leaders but by grassroots coalitions. And in America, nearly EVERY single revolutionary movement since this country's founding was spearheaded by people of color. And the latest one? By LGBT people. Progressive unions are getting behind her. Organizations that have fought for progress for decades are getting behind her. The fact that Hillary isn't as progressive as I'd like her to be is not as relevant in the face of this reality. Yes, I am all about class struggle but dismissing this coalition's needs and concerns as "identity politics" and then claiming the mantle of socialism and progressivism is a blind spot at best and an insult at worst. And keep in mind, her coalition is WELL to the left of where she's generally been. Support for socialism and progressivism scales with how black and brown and non-straight people are. So if Hillary betrays this coalition, she'll lose.
Does it matter that she needed vocal opposition before she came out against the TPP? Does it matter she flip-flopped in the right direction? Maybe. After all, there is the threat she can always flip flop back. But she does still want to win 2 terms, and i assume she does want a legacy. Does it matter her husband signed NAFTA? Yes. Does it matter that she praised Kissinger? Hell yes it does. Does it matter what happened overseas? Yes, I oppose those aspects of her policy and I think those are what we should pressure her the most to change; her hawkish inclinations are a product of the 90s and a product of possibly needing to overcompensate for sexism. At the same time though, you can't lionize Franklin Delano "Internment and Strategic Bombing" Roosevelt, John F "Bay of Pigs" Kennedy, and Lyndon Baines "Vietnam" Johnson and then have Hillary's comparatively lesser moral failings be dealbreakers for you. I understand why it's easy to think she's a neoliberal shill, because to be relevant in American politics, you sort of have at least make a few neoliberal shill noises. The question is, what are you going to do about it? We have a politician that is clearly willing to compromise and change her views based on the political winds. But that means the task falls to us to direct those political winds, rather than wait for a savior. Hillary is not a savior either, but she is ultracompetent, intelligent, and even though it often gets masked by the insanity of traditional American foreign policy, she has a strong sense of empathy and caring, which shows in the reaction of people who work with her, i.e "I'd crawl over broken glass for her", paraphrased". And as of today she's promoting and campaigning on progressive policy (far beyond even 2008, when she was to the left of Obama on many issues). It's up to us to keep her that way."
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies