![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thinking about an article examining why there is so much negative sentiment about Hillary Clinton ( https://hulshofschmidt.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/dear-hillary-how-very-dare-you/ ) I wrote:
Many attacks on Hillary Clinton don't connect with me on an emotional level. I've always been worried about her running for president because, like Bush, it would mean that we have multiple people in the same immediate family in close succession being the chief executive. I think that's a problem. But that particular objection has nothing to do with her positions on policy or fitness as chief executive. I would have loved to see Bernie Sanders win the nomination, but here we are with two major party candidates, one of whom will become president, and Sanders isn't one of them.
I've never looked at Clinton's actions as first lady, or even as Secretary of State very deeply. It is simply impossible for human beings in this society to be fully conversant with what's going on in policy setting. As political scientist E. E. Schatschneider argued in "The Semisovereign People," a system that doesn't realistically take that into account is classist and broken.
No news there, right? Schatschneider also wrote that "The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent." He also noted that the reason a lot of people aren't voting is that they don't perceive clear differences in the parties in ways that affect *them*. There's a lot in that book from 1960 that applies today. That's why it was assigned in my public policy class at Syracuse.
Clinton is not perfect, but she's done a lot of good things along with the bad ones. Perhaps most important to me, she will produce a Supreme Court that isn't filled with people who are as strongly conservative as Antonin Scalia. The Supreme Court is not something to screw around with. Republicans know this, as they've demonstrated by absolutely refusing to allow any appointments under Obama. If the Supreme Court justices become a majority of people with philosophies like Ruth Ginsburg or Sonia Sotomayor, a wide array of conservative agendas will have major stumbling blocks to hurdle.
There are just so many reasons for me to vote for Clinton in the general election. Perhaps that introduces bias to my evaluation of the information I'm slowly taking in about her. Be that as it may, I'm feeling pretty good about casting a vote for Clinton this November, while researching third party candidates at a local level who might be able to actually get elected, make a difference locally, and begin creating a foundation for higher level offices. That's where we need to start with third party politics, in my humble opinion. Get enough people elected to lower offices and those parties will start looking more viable to the general populace.
Many attacks on Hillary Clinton don't connect with me on an emotional level. I've always been worried about her running for president because, like Bush, it would mean that we have multiple people in the same immediate family in close succession being the chief executive. I think that's a problem. But that particular objection has nothing to do with her positions on policy or fitness as chief executive. I would have loved to see Bernie Sanders win the nomination, but here we are with two major party candidates, one of whom will become president, and Sanders isn't one of them.
I've never looked at Clinton's actions as first lady, or even as Secretary of State very deeply. It is simply impossible for human beings in this society to be fully conversant with what's going on in policy setting. As political scientist E. E. Schatschneider argued in "The Semisovereign People," a system that doesn't realistically take that into account is classist and broken.
No news there, right? Schatschneider also wrote that "The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent." He also noted that the reason a lot of people aren't voting is that they don't perceive clear differences in the parties in ways that affect *them*. There's a lot in that book from 1960 that applies today. That's why it was assigned in my public policy class at Syracuse.
Clinton is not perfect, but she's done a lot of good things along with the bad ones. Perhaps most important to me, she will produce a Supreme Court that isn't filled with people who are as strongly conservative as Antonin Scalia. The Supreme Court is not something to screw around with. Republicans know this, as they've demonstrated by absolutely refusing to allow any appointments under Obama. If the Supreme Court justices become a majority of people with philosophies like Ruth Ginsburg or Sonia Sotomayor, a wide array of conservative agendas will have major stumbling blocks to hurdle.
There are just so many reasons for me to vote for Clinton in the general election. Perhaps that introduces bias to my evaluation of the information I'm slowly taking in about her. Be that as it may, I'm feeling pretty good about casting a vote for Clinton this November, while researching third party candidates at a local level who might be able to actually get elected, make a difference locally, and begin creating a foundation for higher level offices. That's where we need to start with third party politics, in my humble opinion. Get enough people elected to lower offices and those parties will start looking more viable to the general populace.
