Hillary Clinton, The Alt-Right, And Me
Ella Dawson

I’m not sure how to take a piece like this. I have the deepest sympathy for the author. On the other hand, I don’t like the shilling for Hillary Clinton. And I don’t like the inference that all white men do this. You don’t have to explicitly say that all white men do this to make that point, just as Bush didn’t have to directly say that Iraq and 9/11 were linked. Just putting “white men” and “harassment” and “bros” in proximity enough times, without ever offering an alternative reality, makes the connection in people’s minds.

As far as Hillary goes, I’m glad that she supports you too, and condemns the alt right. Nobody should have to endure this type of harassment. She is brave to take on these people, and she’s doing the right thing.

Hillary, however, is a complicated person. She is also the largest arms dealer in the world. She approved hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons sales to the Middle East, often to countries with appalling records on women’s rights and human rights, but who had donated millions of dollars to her foundation. That is not a “fringe conspiracy theory.” It’s a fact. The arms sales are documented in Section 655 reports from the State Department. The donations are documented on the Clinton Foundation website.

Those weapons are killing people. Lots of them. The Middle East is in flames. Arms sales move through the black market after they are sold. They end up in the hands of terrorist organizations, bad guys, etc.

Many people say, “Well, Secretaries of State sell arms. She was only doing her job.” True enough. But her rate of weapons sales was extraordinary. It was more than double the rate of Condoleeza Rice in the Bush administration. It is unparalleled in human history. I don’t know of a single person who signed on the bottom line for more arms sales in a shorter period of time than Hillary Clinton. So there’s that.

There is a great divide in the U.S. between domestic and foreign policy. Most elections are won on domestic policy. Nobody cares what’s going on in the rest of the world. But if the inference is that Hillary Clinton “cares,” then I guess a question I would have is, “About who?” About the women in Saudi Arabia who live under a repressive regime that she sold $29.5 billion of military aircraft to? About the wars in Syria, etc. that are largely being fought with weapons whose sale she approved? About the nearly one million dead in Iraq as a result of a war that she voted to authorize?

And I think it’s fair, in the case of people who ignore that part of her record, but think that Hillary cares about them, to wonder how much they are motivated by self-interest. Don’t get me wrong. I’m largely motivated by self-interest. I freely admit that. I’m convinced that other people are too. I won’t bust anybody for making their way through the world just as I do. But I question the “Hillary cares,” narrative. Again, about who? If the answer is, “About people like me,” I’m not happy with that answer. Lots of people are not like me. They might live somewhere else, for example.

Lest this become a male-female thing (why am I worried about that?), let me explain that I feel the same way about a $15 minimum wage. I support it. Immediately. But I’m well aware that I support it out of self-interest. If I were truly interested in wage inequality, I would start with the difference between America and the rest of the world. It’s simple. Going from $10 to $15 per hour in the U.S. is much less important than raising wages for textile workers in Bangladesh. If my priority is wage inequality, I try to funnel money from the U.S. to Bangladesh. Period. If a $15 minimum wage is my priority, then I’m largely motivated by self-interest.

I wish you the best, and I hope that you don’t suffer any more harassment. You’re a brave person, and I’m on your side. Thank you for speaking out.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.