When the primaries began, I was evenly split between Hillary & Bernie. I donated to both, listened to both, thought about both. Now I’m 100% in the HRC camp. Why? Two main reasons: first, a positive one: I think she has a much wider grasp of the nations problems than Bernie, and not only that, a much better consciousness of what can be done to resolve them. Second, a negative one: Bernie’s supporters and his campaign in general have just put me off him. It’s ironic, really: one of the elements of the Clinton campaign that has been criticized is that they seem to think they are entitled to the nomination. But one of the things that has put me off Sanders is the aggressive sense of entitlement that emanates from his campaign at every level.
In the debate, there were two nicely illustrative examples of the positive reason. First, the “no middle-class tax increase” pledge by Hillary and its rejection by Bernie. Now, I personally don’t see newer taxes as a bad thing, especially if it results in higher value for society as a whole. But over the years, I’ve learned that my views on this are very different from that of most Americans. Many Americans believe (incorrectly) that they are highly taxed, and that higher taxes are always bad. I believe that Hillary’s tax pledge was a direct appeal to fiscal conservatives who are becoming increasingly upset with the Republican clown car and who may be ready to jump ship toward a Democratic candidate. Such a pledge will be very attractive to them, I believe.
Another aspect of her pledge which I think was very wise: $250k as the cut-off. Many here were shocked at that: an income that high simply isn’t middle class, it’s at least lower-upper class. But remember the past election, when Republicans in particular were rejecting lower cut-offs on the grounds that higher incomes were indeed middle class? If you see this pledge as an initiative to broaden the Democratic tent, to attract conservatives disgusted by Trump-Cruz-Bush-whomever, then setting such a high cut-off is very wise. And in any case, simple logic tells us that if there are no tax increases below the $250k level, then there will be no middle-class tax increases. The lower the cut-off, the more likely it will be that someone who considers himself to be middle class will receive a tax increase and shriek like a wounded plutocrat about it.
The $250k tax pledge, while not a huge deal from a Democratic or progressive perspective, could turn out to be crucial during the general election. Furthermore, it’s exactly the kind of nuance that I simply don’t see Sanders being likely to adopt.
The second example during the debate of my main positive reason for supporting Hillary had to do with Assad. I really liked Bernie’s response to the question of what to do with Daesh. For several months now, I’ve posted comments similar to Bernie’s: let’s put Assad on the back burner and deal with genocidal Daesh first. I even wrote an email to Obama saying that. I commented very positively on the live thread here to what he said. But Hillary’s rejoinder just blew me away. She concisely connected the dots, demonstrating exactly how Assad’s actions against his own people are inextricably connected to the rise of Daesh and to its success, and she asked the question: how can we limit ourselves to just one aspect of this mess? Every success against Daesh will be cancelled out when new converts—created in large part by Assad’s oppression and butchery—arrive to take their places. She completely changed my mind on the issue. I now believe that whether our engagement is military or diplomatic, we must keep the pressure on Assad as well as on Daesh. It’s really parallel to the situation with Iran: yes, we want them to join the fight against Daesh, but we would be fools to give them carte blanche for their nuclear program, or for their support for Assad. Her approach is more complicated, sure, even confusing. But Hillary is neither confused nor intimidated by it, and, more importantly, she doesn’t rely on a spurious simplification.
I’m not going to say too much about the negative side of this coin. I don’t generally like negativity nor do I like to dwell on it. Suffice it to say that it is not going to help our party for us to insult each other and the party’s leadership, and it’s certainly not going to help if we take a my-way-or-the-highway position on our party’s nominees. No matter what happens, I would really like for that aspect of our discussion to go away. During the recent days, I have seen several substantial examples of it coming from HRC supporters here, and I disassociate myself from them completely, and hope they stop. That said, there has been an unrelenting and largely one-sided stream of insults and absolutism from the Sanders campaign and his supporters for some time now, culminating over the last few days in reprehensible statements and actions at the highest level of his campaign. I have no intention to go into details because I believe that this recent affair needs to go away, and that going over and over the details will keep it in the forefront. In any case, my only point is to show how both positive and negative factors have led my to my current support for Hillary Clinton.
As surely must be clear, the above is my personal opinion. I find it useful to run such things up the flagpole to see what reaction they produce. Furthermore, it is a work in progress: I could conceivably change my mind (although at this point I believe it unlikely). Finally, if it should arrive that Sanders receives the nomination, I’ll support him in the general election, as I will support all of the party’s nominees.
Well, happy solstice.
Greg Shenaut