Criticizing Hillary Clinton Is NOT The Same As Supporting Trump

“Oh, you don’t support Hillary Clinton? Do you want Trump to become President?”. “You dislike Hillary Clinton? Why do you hate women?”. “You’re voting for Jill Stein? You might as well be voting for Trump.” Such are the arguments being pushed by the regressive left and the establishment. Fears about a “Trump Presidency” have been weaponized to stifle all criticism of Hillary Clinton. This whole notion that all criticism from progressives and liberals towards Hillary Clinton must be held back just because diet Hitler is running for President is not just irrational, it runs against the very principles that liberals claim to stand up for.

No doubt there is an underbelly of racism, xenophobia and irrational bigotry within Trump’s base. But we shouldn’t be so quick to condemn liberals who express their distaste for Hillary Clinton. They may actually have a point. To dismiss these arguments as “Pro-Trump rhetoric” only serves to sweep these pressing issues beneath the carpet.

Hillary Clinton, by American political standards would not be considered a liberal. Her record on social issues, foreign policy and the economy, puts her closer to mainstream moderate Republicans than most of the Democratic Party’s base.

When it came to adopting progressive causes like same-sex marriage, decriminalization of Marijuana, raising the minimum wage and campaign financing, Hillary Clinton was late to the party.

And then there is Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy record. As New York Senator, her 2002 vote in the Senate to authorize an invasion of Iraq was the first major break in her bond with the Democratic base. Her 2008 presidential campaign further alienated anti-war voters when she criticized President Barack Obama’s pledge to meet with leaders of rogue states in his first year.

As Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive hawks, exerting her influence and weight to push for US military intervention. This was none more so than in Libya.

In the run-up to the NATO intervention in Libya, Secretary Clinton became convinced that overthrowing Gaddafi would lead to a stable democracy. She was a fierce proponent of arming Libyan rebels — some with known ties to Jihadists. In an interview with the New York Times, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that Clinton was a major influence in President Barack Obama’s decision to go to war. Gates recounted Obama once telling him a debate in the Oval Office on the issue was split “51–49.”

“I’ve always thought that Hillary’s support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach,” Gates said.

The United States did eventually go to war in Libya, and so did the rest of NATO. On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya to enforce a no-fly zone. The collapse of the Gaddafi Regime did not bring the desired stable democracy the United States was hoping for. Far from it, the power vacuum led to a destabilization of the country with multiple factions vying for power. The weapons supplied by Hillary Clinton’s State Department eventually ended up in the hands of Jihadist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda.

The disaster in Libya has clouded the legacy of the Obama Presidency. Criticism of Hillary Clinton’s role in the Libyan intervention have resurfaced in the campaign.

Hillary Clinton has also been accused of being a Washington insider, a tool of the establishment. Such rhetoric is unsurprising given Hillary Clinton’s warm ties with Wall Street. New emails released by the whistle-blowing journalism organization Wikileaks provide insight into the world of backroom deals, paid speeches and generous campaign contributions.

The speeches, for which Clinton was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each, reflect her neo-liberal, pro-corporate ideology. In them, Clinton stressed the importance of free markets and the financial sector for the economy. Hillary Clinton also admitted that she was “far removed from the middle class”, claimed that people were politicizing the 2008 economic recession to “blame the banks” and denied altogether that the system was rigged against the working class.

If voters had a trust issue with Hillary Clinton, the new revelations from Wikileaks did little to allay skepticism.

Debate on actual issues surrounding the campaign have been drowned out every time Donald Trump opens his mouth to make yet another outrageous statement. This whole election has been reduced to a bare-knuckled fist fight over who’s more unpopular. The mud-slinging, scandal ridden gossip that has dominated the 2016 Election cycle has only made the American electorate ever more cynical of the political system. Moreover, Donald Trump’s erratic nature has effectively given Hillary Clinton a free pass despite her questionable record. Essentially, the primary reason why millions of Hillary Clinton’s supporters can bring themselves to support her is not because she is so good but that Trump is so bad.

Voting for Hillary Clinton just because you want to prevent a Trump Presidency is not a compelling argument by any measure. And castigating voters for supporting third party options like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson only serves the continuity of America’s broken 2-party system.

Stop calling every Jill Stein supporter as “selfish” or “helping Trump win”. There is an entire community of liberals in America who disagree with Hillary Clinton on principle, but who would never vote for Trump. News flash: people still have the right to support whichever candidate they choose. It’s called Democracy for a reason.