An unorthodox endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders is the educated version of his lesser leftist twin that the UK has been laden with. He is a very impressive man. In the 1960s he was an active campaigner for civil rights and, since then, he has gone on to prove himself across different public positions, from the Mayor of Burlington to a Senator of Congress. While in Congress he has passed more amendments then any other politician. This legislative accomplishment is of great importance, for such a record would usually involve a sacrifice of principals. But, Sanders has remained steadfast in his views throughout his time in Washington. He currently runs his state as an independent (although he caucuses with the democrats) and he refuses to affiliate with organised religion (despite the obvious benefits that doing so would bring). He calls himself a democratic socialist, and he probably is one in the truest sense of the phrase.

Hillary Clinton is the rival candidate, and is the establishment pick. Amongst the names that contribute to her campaign are: Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase and Co. But, let it not be said that she limits herself to domestic buyers. Since 2013, The Clinton Foundation has been receiving donations from such noteworthy countries as the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Is there anyone she’s not indebted too? Yes – the American people funnily enough. However, if she does become president then she will owe them their votes, and votes are the cheapest of all the debts to backpay. When Clinton is not selling her country to the highest bidder, she spends her free time renting herself out by using her position as future president incumbent to earn herself millions of dollars, giving paid speeches to banks and cooperations. Such is the company of the political businesswoman.

votes are the cheapest of all the debts to backpay

Clinton is obsessed with the Oval Office and, unlike Sanders, will do whatever it takes to sit in it. This lack of principal has been noticeable on too many occasions. It was only in 2013 that she finally gave gay marriage her secretarial tick of approval. Remember that as late as 2004 she had been dismissing gay marriage and talking about “sacred bonds” of matrimony. She probably didn’t mean it back then, but who’s to say that she means it now? She probably doesn’t care either way.

Could this reversal not be interpreted as a good sign – a sign of someone who can change with the times? It could be, but it isn’t. Not when Clinton changes her mind on everything. She frequently changed her opinion on Iraq depending on her current political ambitions. She now publicly concedes the surge worked, yet previously she was opposed to it, and before that she voted for the Iraq war. As defence secretary Bob Gates, in his memoir of the Obama administration, recalled: “Hilary told the president that her opposition to the (2007) surge in Iraq had been political.” She is protean by nature; she flickers indecisively until she finds her own political highground.

What would American under President Clinton II look like? She will suck up to the gun lobbies while talking about cracking down on them. She will go on sponsored tours of the world that yield little apart from the lining of her own pockets. She will cosy up to Iran while talking up Israel – or vise versa. Currently she is under investigation from the FBI over the murky Benghazi affair and also has to cope with her stupid email debacle. Clinton will pop a vein in order to recover whatever is left of her public image, and thus the tenure of President Clinton II will be lumpen – at least four years of directionless stagnation.

Why is it then, that with a heavy heart, we must back her?

Sanders has promised us everything. He has promised free education and he has promised free medicare, he has promised to tackle both climate change and reverse America’s democratic deficit; income inequality will be lowered through a living wage, there will be sick leave for all, the rural economy will be reformed and Wall Street will be put on a leash. There is no end to the things that Sanders wishes to change, but all of these things will come at a cost. On Sanders’ website is the helpful section called: “How will Bernie pay for his proposals?” – a refreshing change from the politicians who would duck the question. Sanders is frank and open about how he will fund his changes. Taxation. Lots of it.

Sanders has promised us everything

Here’s the problem. Obama has struggled with the presidency. The exhilaration of his election has slowly extinguished with time, exhausted by political reality. With Sanders promising even more change, in what essentially amounts to a progressive revolution, government shutdowns could become permanent. This isn’t even the main issue though; on any other day, the optimist in me would still back Sanders over Clinton. But, this is not just any other day – for facing our democratic nominee on the other side of the podium will be the worst thing the Republicans have produced in years. In other words, the elephant in the room really is the elephant in the room, and this enormous elephant cannot be allowed to trample on the democratic donkey.

Just as Sanders and Clinton were battling it out in the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump was winning a sweeping victory. BBC News reported that Trump was likely to secure more than twice the number of votes of the next Republican candidate. Sanders was similarly victorious in the latest primary; he told supporters: “It is just too late for the same old, same old establishment politics and establishment economics.”Sanders, like Trump, is currently riding on a wave of discontent with mainstream politics.

However, Sanders is too much of a risk. He is the man most likely to lose the presidential election. If the democrats do decide to plump for him, they better make damn sure that he goes all the way. Sanders will save America from the one per cent, but Clinton will save America from Trump.