The lesser of two evils: this is the decision the US is being asked to make come November 8.
While Trump continues to outrage all rational people, dissing the media, fellow republicans, disabled people, Muslims, Mexican immigrants, grieving parents and even babies, Hillary Clinton leads the democratic race, fixed smile and robotic demeanour no matter how hard she tries to seem like the well-considered democratic answer to America’s many ills. Donald Trump is obviously appalling, but can anyone seem to manage to warm to Hillary? Why is Clinton failing to connect with US voters in the way she should? Why on earth does this vastly experienced woman who was in the White House with her husband, who played Secretary of State under Obama’s government and has spent decades garnering political nous and experience, continue to seem simply like a default potential president: nobody can seem to passionately get behind Hillary though many understand that they must turn out to vote for her if only to ensure that the absurd Mr Trump doesn’t take the reins of power and let all hell break loose.
Whatever Clinton’s faults, she at least is not a xenophobic, sexist, profit obsessed nut-job with delusions of grandeur who will prove a dangerous embarrassment if he gets his absurd comb-over and pseudo-android wife to Capitol Hill.
Hillary is not exactly Satan, but she is Machiavellian, calculating and possibly psychopathic.
Trump is moronic in his anti-Muslim and anti-immigration sentiments, but Hillary and her husband Bill have made careers ingratiating themselves with corporate America and appearing to care about the lot of the average man on the street while charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for after-dinner speeches at Goldman Sachs and peddling a profit-oriented political agenda that is pleasing to Wall Street and the rest of the financial elite. Much of the American left derides Hillary as a neo-liberal war-monger, and there are indeed grounds for such an accusation, but nevertheless, Hillary is not the death knell for humanity that Donald Trump represents.
Welcome, then to the ‘lesser evil’ voting system.
We cannot endorse Trump so even while we acknowledge the kow-towing to ghastly corporate interests and willingness to wage war in Middle Eastern territories that mark Hillary Clinton as morally suspect, she is still a fair notch or two above her opponent.
It’s terrible, but Hillary is our only hope of some kind of leadership above the level of lunacy the Republican candidate would likely subject us to. Sure the lesser of two evils is still evil, but can’t we at least agree that Hillary has the composure and potential for leadership honed over decades of experience to at the very least be trusted not to occasion the deployment of the US nuclear arsenal in some wild fit of derangement or need to militarily show the world who’s boss?
Trump denies the reality of global warming, wants to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, has pledged to increase military spending and wishes to cut tax for the stinking rich.
Granted, Hillary will not bring us a new and more equal world order, her persona lacks novelty and openness and she remains establishment to her very core. It’s hard to feel that her presidency will be anything more than corruption and elitist pandering as usual.
There is no compassionate representative here.
There is no real opportunity to fight for a fairer America with either of these candidates.
Caught between the lesser of two evils Hillary - just - clinches it. It’s our last resort.
There is simply no alternative because Trump is a stooge who could easily help start World War III with his aggressively stupid appoach to foreign policy.
‘Things could be worse,’ optimists routinely tell us. On the question of the American primary race I disagree.
Join me doom-mongers in realising the sad horror about to befall Washington: it will be corruption-as-usual or Replublican retrograde madness at its most flambuoyantly terrible.