You’re Fucked Regardless (a.k.a. Should You Vote For Clinton?)
A Moral Explainer
(There’s a TL;DR at the bottom.)
I am aware of two lines of rhetoric regarding the election: one against voting for Hillary Clinton, and one for voting for Hillary Clinton. They’re both used by people on the left, and I’ve seen both doused in the language of privilege, which is a relevant (albeit oft-misused) tool for looking at moral responsibility for social change.
I’ve organized these arguments into Premise-Conclusion format, which makes them much easier to pick apart. We’ll consider these arguments relevant (sound) if:
- If all the premises are true, then the conclusion is forced to be true. (A valid argument)
- All the premises are true.
I’ve pointed these arguments at me, but they can be twisted to implicate anyone — including you.
Let’s take a look:
The Anti-Hillary Argument
P1a) If person X has significant privilege in society, voting for a candidate with a record of perpetuating the oppression of people less privileged than X would be an exercise of X’s own privilege.
P2) I have significant privilege in society, more so than most racial minorities, queer people, women, and poor people.
P3a) Hillary Clinton has a record of perpetuating the oppression of racial minorities, queer people, women, and poor people.
Ca) My voting for Hillary Clinton would be an exercise in my own privilege.
The Pro-Hillary Argument
P1b) If person X has significant privilege in society, voting in a manner that opens the possibility of society becoming worse for people less privileged than X would be an exercise of X’s own privilege.
P2) I have significant privilege in society, more so than most racial minorities, queer people, women, and poor people.
P3b) Voting for not-Clinton candidates opens the possibility of a hateful demagogue (Donald Trump) becoming president.
P4) If a hateful demagogue (Donald Trump) becomes president, society will become worse for racial minorities, queer people, women, and poor people.
P5) If Hillary Clinton becomes president, society will not become worse for racial minorities, queer people, women, and poor people.
Cb) My voting for {Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Bernie Sanders, Vermin Supreme, or any other not-Clinton candidates} would be an exercise in my own privilege.
If you’re confused, that’s OK. I used language that’s a cousin of legalese, because I want the original argument to be as precise as possible. I’ve gone out of my way to organize these arguments so that they are valid. If all of the premises in one argument is true, we’ll be forced to accept the whole argument. If you read an article that avoids any of those premises but comes to the same conclusion, that article is probably bad, and the writer of that article should feel bad.
Let’s break down these arguments, starting with their structure.
P1a) and P1b) are axioms I extracted from what I’ve heard from each argument. These axioms are what hold the arguments together. We’ll look at them a bit later. The rest of the premises fill in the blanks in the axioms, turning those axioms into statements about the real world.
Now, let’s take at each premise, look at them through normal-people words, and see whether they’re true.
(Quick note: P2) doesn’t get a letter because it’s the same in both arguments. P4) and P5) don’t get a letter because they’re only in the Pro-Hillary Argument.)
P2)
Translation: “As a cisgender, heterosexual, neurotypical, upper-middle-class, Indian-American man, society treats me better than it treats a bunch of other people.”
Is it true: Yes. And it almost certainly is true to you, too. Let’s define privilege as “The ability to ignore societal problems because they don’t directly and obviously affect you.” I have that ability. I don’t have to worry about whether transgender people are getting beat up for their gender, because I’m not getting beat up because of my gender. Everyone has privilege in some dimension, but some people have more than others. It’s nothing to feel guilty about; it’s just a fact of life.
P3a)
Translation: “If you’re poor, queer, a woman, and/or not-white, Clinton is bad news for you. (a.k.a. Clinton is a status quo candidate.)”
Is it true: Yes. Many people who argue for P3a) cite Clinton saying stuff about gay marriage and crime in the ’90s. (See: “super-predators”). If you think Clinton’s opinions can and have changed, this evidence doesn’t have a whole lot of weight. But better proof comes from Clinton’s continued support for multinational corporations, which do have an up-to-now record of screwing over people less privileged than, say, me. If you’re confused about that, look up “redlining,” “predatory lending,” “gender pay gap,” “token diversity,” “why all of these buildings named after rich white men,” and “why we’re bombing Syria and supporting Saudi Arabia.” Sure, Clinton probably won’t make things a whole lot worse than they are now, but that doesn’t change the fact that society still unfairly fucks over a lot of people.
P3b)
Translation: “A vote for not-Clinton is a vote for Trump.”
Is it true: Yes. Shut up. You know it’s true. This is just an artifact of first-past-the-post voting. If you’re curious, look up “spoiler candidate,” or check out C.G.P. Grey’s great videos on why nobody does voting right.
P4)
Translation: “Trump will do bad things to poor people, queer people, women, and not-white people.”
Is it true: Close enough. I don’t know how much he’ll do about the queer community (I don’t think he cares), but his economic policy is fantasy math (that conveniently makes taxes go away for rich people) and, uh, he’s not really a fan of not-white people. But you knew that already.
P5)
Translation: “If Clinton is elected, life will not get worse for poor people, queer people, women, or not-white people. (a.k.a. Clinton is a status quo candidate)”
Is it true: Probably. Note that P5) is NOT the opposite of P3a). P3a) implies that under a Clinton Administration, life as a less-privileged person will suck. P5) implies that under a Clinton Administration, life as a less-privileged person will not get worse. These are slightly different premises, and they can be true at the same time. In fact, when you combine P3a) and P5), you get, “If you are poor, queer, a woman, or not-white, your life will suck no more or less than it has in the past eight years or so.” How status quo get you get?
In short, we’re accepting all of the fill-in-the-blanks premises in both arguments.
But let’s get to the interesting stuff: the axioms. Here, we’ll dig into some fundamental ethics.
P1a)
Translation: “Don’t vote for someone who makes life suck for poor people, queer people, women, and not-white people.”
WTF: This axiom is Kantian in nature. The basic idea is that the most important thing you can do is do the right thing. If doing the right thing means bad things happen, well, so be it. At least you acted in good faith. “Moral victories” are generally Kantian victories.
P1b)
Translation: “Don’t throw away your vote. Unite against the greater evil.”
WTF: This axiom is utilitarian in nature. The basic idea is that the most important thing you can do is do the thing that makes the whole world most good. If doing the thing that makes the whole world most good means doing absolutely horrible things, well, so be it. At least the world is a better place. “The ends justify the means” is the heart of utilitarianism.
Note that I said “in nature.” Both axioms come from intuitive ideas of morality, albeit wrapped up in the phrase, “an exercise of one’s privilege” (which means “you don’t give a shit about other people’s suffering”). Neither axiom can define a total moral code, so even if Kantianism and utilitarianism butt heads in a lot of cases, there’s no reason to believe that P1a) and P1b) are mutually exclusive. Both can be true.
And I think P1a) and P2b) both are true.
P1a) is true because, let’s face it, if you’re voting for someone who perpetuates injustice, aren’t you helping perpetuate that injustice? At best, you’re that person standing to the side, seeing little Shawna get beat up, and not intervening. At worst, you’re the person egging on the asshole beating up little Shawna.
P1b) is also true because — admit it — that novelty candidate you love will not win. You may hate everyone who says that, but it’s true. At best, you’re doing nothing to make the world an actually better place. At worst, you’re running the risk of condemning a lot of people who have things way worse off than you to an even worse life at the hands of a narcissist-sociopath-turned-reactionary.
So basically, we’ve accepted all of the premises to both arguments. And assuming that both arguments are valid (which they probably are), we are forced to accept both arguments.
Therefore: It is exercise of privilege to vote for Hillary Clinton. And is an exercise of privilege to vote for not-Hillary Clinton.
CONCLUSION (TL;DR)
If you have privilege (probably true), and you believe that Hillary Clinton will make America neither worse nor better for oppressed people (which is pretty true):
- There is a solid, convincing argument that voting for Hillary Clinton makes you a horrible person voting to make less-privileged people’s lives (continue to) suck.
- There is a solid, convincing argument that voting against Hillary Clinton makes you a horrible person voting to make less-privileged people’s lives suck (more).
This means that you cannot win. No matter how you vote, you’re a horrible person.
So what can you do?
- Just take some principled stance voting for president. At least show you care.
- Pay attention to elections beyond the presidency. You know, congressional representatives, senators, state legislators, governors, mayors, town council, etc. You have no idea how much good (and damage) can be caused by “less powerful” politicians.
- Remember that you can act beyond the ballot box. Speak out. Join a protest march or advocacy group. At least work in a soup kitchen or something.
Or at least, do what I do:
- Remember that America is going to burn regardless. People are pissed off, folks. Really pissed off.
