One of the things that rankled so many people after our 2008 banking crisis was the neat and undeniable logic of the position that bailing the banks out was necessary to avert a more dire set of circumstances. We handed over obscene amounts of taxpayer funded wealth in bailouts and further obscene amounts in quantitative easing which have effectively consolidated the position of the largest financial institutions that survived. Many people consider that Bush and Obama merely put those institutions back in the same position they were in 2006. Many of us are very concerned about whether Hillary Clinton still supports the main idea that, given sufficient freedom, things will work out; that the banks can self regulate.
I'll be the first to admit that I preferred bailing out the banks to the alternative. I'm not at all okay with the way it was handled. We basically rewarded them for fucking us and likely will again. It appears that the long con reigns supreme.
The common sense argument that we need to support Hillary in order to avoid the train wreck that is Trump makes sense to most of us, especially those of us who remark that we'll be holding our noses while we vote for her and taking showers afterward. Fortunately I have a bottle of Dr. Bronner's peppermint castile soap for the occasion. It's just so frustratingly analogous to the bailout argument under different auspices; do this or it's a world of hurt. Why can we never seem to do better?
I get it. I understand the consequences of not Hillary. I can't speak for others but I suspect (and hope) they feel similarly. If Hillary acolytes don't get that, it's sad. Anyone wanting to continue making remarks about ponies, rainbows, unicorns and free stuff, well bugger off.
This is about whether Hills understands and gives a flying hoot in hell about the different ways in which various constituencies in the bottom 2/3 of our society process ideas about whether it's even possible to change the direction of our system to one that no longer punishes not being wealthy.
This is about the ways in which those perceptions contribute to whether a more or less malleable and angry portion of the electorate will suspend reason and avail us all of the freedom to enjoy a further descent into fascism.
On a global scale it's about whether the wealthiest people in the most powerful industrialized nations will continue to run the planet as if it's okay that the bottom 50% is basically starving or being murdered as we speak. Admittedly, that's much bigger than the US and it's not uniquely Hillary's fault but we're a part of it and she's been on that stage for a while now.
I'm hoping that Hillary understands the reasons why people embrace the authoritarianism represented by dictators and fascists, now manifest in the US as Trump. Perhaps she understands why "values voters" vote their values as opposed to their practical well being as well as how and why the Republicans have been so successful at co-opting evangelicals toward their consolidation of power…or perhaps she doesn't.
…and that's what makes it all the more frustrating.
Perhaps it is all part of a grand slide into Hell and I'll learn to love my handcart.
Maybe I'll wake up tomorrow and find a bottle of blue pills on my bedside table.
I'll be casting my vote for "her" in Nov., which doesn't necessarily mean I'm "with" her. I'm committed here; no flights of fancy to distract me from my grim duty. The DNC can count on my vote.
I'm sorry, Dr. Stein but I know you understand. The US political system in its current state of crisis does not permit me to vote my conscience at this time. At least there are Dr. Bronner's and a big fattie to cleanse my body and spirit afterward.