The Politics of Cognitive Dissonance:

I like the old adage, “you can judge a tree by its fruit,” but for the sake of argument I’ll play your game of pretending that Hillary Clinton’s past policy positions are no indication of how she would govern as president.

The crux of your argument is that Hillary has adopted 80% of Sander’s policy positions while Trump’s platform mirrors the Nazi platform of 1933. your argument could be better served if you would take the time to list those positions in a format that makes them easy to compare. Just posting a link to the respective campaign websites does not support your argument in any meaningful way. You are asking your reader to do your work for you.

In the absence of an actual argument from the author, I’ve provided a comparative summary of some of the respective policy positions.

The cornerstone of Bernie’s platform is to address income inequality by breaking up the big banks, moving swiftly to a $15.00 an hour minimum wage, enacting single payer healthcare, and making public colleges tuition free. Hillary’s platform supports none of these positions. Where Bernie called for specific and fundamental changes designed to empower people over corporate profits, Hillary replaces it with vague, nice sounding words signifying nothing. The fight for 15 has become, “she will raise the minimum wage to a living wage.” Where Bernie called for breaking up the big banks, she calls for a “risk fee on the largest financial institutions.” Bernie’s detailed nine point plan for real wall street reform has become, “she will defend existing Wall Street reform and push for new measures to strengthen.” The call for single payer healthcare has been reduced to her plan to “defend and expand the Affordable Care Act.” Free tuition for all is watered down to “debt free tuition” for families making less than $100,000.

On foreign policy, nothing in her platform speaks against wars of regime change, or calls for respecting the territorial rights of Palestinians, both fundamental to Bernie’s platform. Instead, she gives us hawkish fear mongering about China and Russia, while dangerously calling for a no-fly zone in Syria. Where Bernie called for less US military involvement around the world, she calls for an increase in our already out-of-control military adventurism.

On the environment, Bernie called for a ban on fracking, and rejection of the Constitution pipeline. Hillary makes no such call, and supports fracking.

Bernie Sanders supports the self determination of Puerto Rico by Puerto Ricans, and a common-sense debt restructuring to help the island recover from the effects of years of vulture capitalism. Hillary Clinton does not mention Puerto Rico in her platform, and supported the appointment of a special governor and imposing austerity measures. Again, she doesn’t even mention the ongoing humanitarian crises affecting millions of our own citizens.

I’m not sure where you get your 80% figure from. Hillary Clinton has removed the proverbial “beef” from Bernie Sander’s platform, and attempts to pass off her pro-corporate agenda with non-specific platitudes.

As for your demonization of Donald Trump by calling his a Nazi Platform, it is an extraordinary claim. You can’t rightfully make such a claim without providing clear and honest examples. His platform reads like a typical republican platform, with a more populist trade agenda. Where is the racism? His call to build a wall across the entire southern border, while a terrible idea from an economic and environmental perspective, is not so different from Hillary’s past calls for building a border fence. I wonder, does she support removing the current wall that exists across much of the southern border of California, for example? If not, then where are the calls of racism towards Hillary and the Democrats?

Much has been made of Trump’s referring to Mexicans as rapists and criminals, but this is a mis-characterization of his actual statement. He also said he is sure many are good people. The real point of Trump’s statement, that an insecure border allows criminals to enter the country illegally, is inarguably true. This is not the same argument as, “all Mexicans are rapists and murderers.” Now, I don’t doubt there is some dog-whistle politics going on here to appeal to the more nationalist segments of our society, but that is not a new development in American politics. Calls to deport undocumented immigrants and to secure the borders come from Republicans every election season. Hillary Clinton has been guilty of the same sort of coded racist language, evidenced by her “super predators” comments in reference black youth, or her campaign’s racist attacks on Obama in 2008. In practice, Democrats have been more effective at rounding up and deporting migrants, or worse, forcing them into indefinite detention, than have Republicans. Obama has deported more people than any president in history, and continues his program of detaining Central American refugee families in sub-standard, over-crowded private prisons. To pretend that Trump’s rhetoric is a huge departure from what we’ve been hearing for years is entirely disingenuous and blatant fear-mongering.

I take further issue with your contention that Trump, “calls to summarily round up, imprison, or deport Hispanics and Muslims without logistical regard for their citizenship status.” Please cite this, as I’m calling bullshit. To my knowledge he has never called for deporting US citizens. He does call for deporting illegal immigrants, strict vetting standards for refugees, and enforcing the immigration laws already on the books. These are things that every nation on earth already does, as a function of being a sovereign nation with legal borders. Democrats are just as guilty of demagoguery on this issue as Republicans, while in practice both parties deliver relatively the same outcomes. Trump’s biggest difference is he does not speak with the polished rhetoric of a career politician.

As for his promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary’s actions as Secretary of State, I’ll just say that her handling of classified info, destruction of evidence, and use of a private server are demonstrably criminal, and any normal citizen would be prosecuted under those circumstances. I would welcome an investigation under a new state department. Our government needs to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton is not above the law, and that powerful citizens cannot break the law with impunity.

Finally, I will address your contention that Trump has called for Clinton’s assassination. While he did not directly call for that, I do believe there was the implication in his statement that gun owners might have to take up arms to prevent nationwide confiscation. While this may be dangerous rhetoric, it is in line with the spirit our our founding documents, and much less damning than the revelation that Hillary Clinton looked into launching an illegal drone strike on Julian Assange. This woman clearly operates comfortably outside of any legal or ethical boundary.

If you want to make the argument that Donald Trump is a terrible candidate, with bad policy ideas, and divisive rhetoric, I think you have a strong case to make. At least as strong a case can be made about Hillary Clinton. Your attempt to paint Trump as a Nazi, and Hillary as an acceptable choice for president, requires serious cognitive dissonance and the sort of dualistic thinking that keeps people worldwide enslaved to an economic system designed to prey on the vast majority of people for the benefit of a relatively tiny number of powerful elites. Hillary Clinton will do nothing but further that agenda.

A real political revolution will require the entire upheaval of an entrenched political system ruled by people who are devoid of ethics or empathy. History has demonstrated time and again that these people will do literally anything to maintain that power. We will never get the revolution we seek by continuing to vote for an anti-revolutionary party. If we can gain a small victory by getting Jill Stein to 5% of the vote, we will have set up the Green Party for an even stronger run in four years, and have given them a bigger pulpit from which to preach their message for a better future. This will at least be a step in the right direction. Hillary Clinton offers no such progress.