I doubt it surprises anyone that I am not voting for Donald Trump, but it may surprise some that I will actually cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. This has been a troubling, but not all that difficult decision because, quite franky, I firmly believe she is the better, safer choice. She is far less likely to damage our economy, our security, our culture and the very foundations of our democracy than is Donald Trump.
Clearly, I had three choices. Vote for Hillary Clinton, vote for a third party candidate or sit this one out.
To sit this one out abdicates responsibility to others and means I have not done all I could to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. Voting third party would give me the chance to cast a principled vote, but given that no third party candidate has even the remotest chance of winning Ohio, that vote would be largely symbolic. If I were to vote third party or independent, I would cast a write-in vote for Evan McMullen, a conservative former CIA operative out of Utah. He is knowledgable, with useful experience in global affairs and has respected conservative bona fides. He'd have made a very desirable major party candidate. But he can't win Ohio, so a vote for him does nothing to stop Donald Trump.
Therefore, I choose Hillary. It will be the first time in my life that I have not voted for the Republican candidate (I do plan to vote for down ballot Republicans). And while my support is almost exclusively to keep Trump out of office, there are a handful of issues where I can say I am affirmatively casting my vote in her favor. These include gun regulation, where I believe a nuanced approach is the responsible one - and one that need not violate the Constitution of the United States. Consider all the rules, regulations and training involving automobiles, yet none of them limit our ability to get in our car and drive where we want. We can surely find some reasonable middle ground that helps control the spread and misuse of guns.
I also prefer her on the environment. I do not think that whether one believes climate change is occuring or not, or whether man is at fault or not, is a partisan question. It is a scientific one. How we respond is ceratinly political, but the question of its existence is not. I worry when any politician dismisses it out of hand, especially one as ill-informed or lacking the curiosity to learn the facts like Donald Trump. The fact is that evidence points to man-made climate change that could be devatating. Again, we need an informed, nuanced approach. Hillary is far more likely to deliver that than Trump.
Finally, while Hillary is most certainly the poster child for all that is wrong with money in politics, she is the only one of the two candidates who has spoken against Citizens United, a Supreme Court ruling that even an ardent supporter of the First Amendment like me finds appalling - and one only the most active political partisans could love. It essentially took the lid off corporate donations, creating a dangerous feedback loop where money buys influence, which brings more money. It has the opportunity to destroy any semblance of government of, by and for the people. I support Hillary in her call to overturn this.
There is much I disagree with her on - free college tuition, a $15 minimum wage and more. I don't trust either side on health care because it is an incredibly complex, emotionally fraught, expensive subject that, quite frankly, we don't have the political guts or the informed electorate that would make workable reform possible.
As for her faults - and there are many - I have done my best to inform myself. I have read a long summary of the FBI investigations into her emails and much of the Gowdy report on Benghazi. I have looked at the tax filings and independent watchdog reports on the Clinton Foundation and reviewed her tax returns. I have concluded that there is far more smoke than fire. I certainly do not believe she has had anyone killed.
That said, the foundation has many questionable relationships, especially where donations bought access, but there appears to be little to no quid pro quo. As to claims they give only 5 or 6% to charity, that is misleading because their foundation is a "boots on the ground" organization that does much of the work itself, so salaries, travel and supplies are largely for care workers, experts and relief. Her email story reads like one almost any IT person dealing with a sixty-plus year-old senior executive would experience - a technophobe who just wants the darn thing to work and has no idea how it does. In this case, it was a server in the basement. And Benghazi is an unfortunate situation that could have happened anywhere. We are a strapped nation with resources spread too thin. Everyone is asking for more resources, more security, more personnel, but not everyone can get them. Unfortunately, Benghazi was the location where that lack of resources had a price. As for her "What difference does it make" comment, that has been taken way out of context. After being asked repeatedly why it took so long to report what actually happened, she finally says, "What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." She then goes on to describe a fluid situation in the aftermath of the attacks. I know this all sounds like a defense, but it is what I've found when I go to the source for information. As for Bill, bimbos, Travelgate and all that, we've fought that fight and it really went nowhere.
In conclusion, I will not be happy come November 9, but I will surely breathe a sigh of relief if Hillary is slated to become our next president. And I will reserve the right to fight her on what I disagree with, defend her when the facts support doing so and pray that our country can find a way to return to informed, civilized debate.
That's my take.
No comments:
Post a Comment