The Case Against Hillary Clinton

Eric Zuesse

The case against Hillary Clinton (click onto it at that link) seems to me to be so strong (and I’ve checked the soundness of all of its sources), so that I’m even asking myself whether I shouldn’t vote the Presidential line at all (or else vote there for a ‘protest’ candidate, which is effectively the same thing as not voting at all) on November 8th, or should instead even go so far as to vote for Donald Trump, in order to prevent her from becoming President.

Then, I saw recently a reader-comment at a news-site where the unpalatable Presidential options were being discussed, and one “patriot” said there that on November 8th, anything would be better than a vote for Trump, to which another person responded:

Not so; I’ve never voted Republican in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate, I’ll vote for Trump, because he has no record in public office (and what he says contradicts himself routinely so can’t be believed), whereas she has an extensive record in public office (and she lies almost as much as he does, and so her words also are null), and that record is disgusting:

Since I wrote that, I was forced to ask myself whether I would vote for Trump if the only real alternative turns out to be Hillary; and, I concluded that, yes, I would, and that the reason is precisely because I don’t trust either candidate, but that only in the case of Hillary am I certain that she as President would be catastrophic. At least with Trump, I have no way of knowing what his real policies would be.

This isn’t to say that I agree with what either candidate says, or would be saying as President; it’s to assert that only Hillary has an actual track-record regarding public policy — and that it’s catastrophic.

A proven catastrophe is far worse than a merely possible catastrophe; so, if Hillary Clinton turns out to be the Democratic nominee, I shall vote for Donald Trump, and then just hope that the worst things that he had said regarding public policy were lies, and that the best things that he had said regarding public policy reflected his actual beliefs.

Anyone who would say in response to this, “But that’s to believe in the horrible policy-prescriptions from Trump” would be missing the point here: this point is the exact opposite: I don’t believe what either of those candidates say; I know that they’re both pathological liars; but, only one of them has an actual record, and it’s catastrophic. Hillary offers not only her lies but something real (a record that’s highly relevant to the office she’s seeking) — and it’s repulsive. Trump, by contrast, offers no relevant track-record at all on public-policy matters. That’s not a virtue on his part, it’s a lack of the worst possible vice (a vile record of actual policies while in public office), for a potential U.S. President.

Given a choice between a proven psychopath, versus merely a possible (or even a likely) psychopath, I’ll definitely opt for the latter. It’s the only intelligent thing to do. Anything else would be suckerdom.

If you want to see her actual vile record on global warming, click here, and here.

If you want to see her vile record against the public and for the top 0.001%, click here.

If you want to see her exploitation of women and Blacks to win elections, click here.

If you want to see her actual support for the Citizens United decision she condemns, click here.

If you want to see her solid record of backing American invasions, click here.

If you want to see her actual support for mega-rich tax-evaders, click here.

And, as far as Trump’s promises about any of these things, they should be ignored as much as her promises about them should be. Even what he has actually done as a businessman isn’t necessarily an indication of what he’d do about the governmental policy-issue. In fact, Trump’s most blatantly bad promises (such as regarding immigration) are far more likely to be quickly abandoned by him as President, than Hillary’s are if she becomes President, because whereas Hillary’s (such as blocking single-payer health insurance) are supported by the Establishment, Trump’s are opposed by them (which is why even Republican donors have been donating more to Hillary’s campaign than to Trump’s campaign). (What do those Republican mega-donors know that the general public don’t? They know Trump.)

When life offers a choice between bad options, one still has an obligation to make that choice, and to do it intelligently. In the case of voting (or else not voting) for the President of one’s nation, it’s more than merely an intellectual obligation: it’s one’s civic duty. That’s why I, as a person with progressive values, will vote for Trump if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • jo6pac

    You do as you see fit, I’ll be voting Green because real change needs to start somewhere.

    • nomadfiles

      great minds think alike

  • nomadfiles

    Because of red state blue state demographics my vote doesn’t matter. My state will go for the GOP candidate no matter who I vote for. Therefore I am free to vote as I please. Hence I will vote Green. And I suggest the rest of you do too. This is after all a watershed election where both legacy parties are straining to hold factions together. Both are poised to put forth the most unsavory presidential candidates imaginable. The disaffected of both parties need to rally around a third option. This is an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the duopoly. The American reign of terror must cease.

  • kimyo

    it’s more than merely an intellectual obligation: it’s one’s civic duty.

    your civic duty is to refuse to participate in an obviously fraudulent election.

    • cettel

      No, that’s your ‘duty’ as a self-righteous individual who’s not really aiming, above all, to produce the least-bad result that’s available under the provided circumstances. For those of us who are concerned above all, about the consequences of what we do and fail to do, “one still has an obligation to make that choice, and to do it intelligently,” irrespective of how fraudulent those provided options turn out to be. If that choice, realistically, is between Trump, who is at present unknowable, versus Hillary, who is very knowable as already possessing a vile record in public office, the unknowable will be the better choice, even if, in retrospect he might turn out to have been, in some ways, even worse than she would likely have been. Since he’s now an unknowable, Trump is the intelligent choice, irrespective of whether he might possibly turn out to have been, retrospectively, possibly even worse than Hillary would have been.

      • kimyo

        hundreds of thousands of votes for sanders were never counted. easily enough to swing many states into his camp.

        why do you think it will be different in november?

  • y3shuA immAnu3l

    ”The philosophy of the day represents the conclusions of men, who, how developed soever intellectually, are still rudimentary in respect of the spiritual consciousness, and fall short, therefore, of their spiritual and true manhood–the manhood which belongs to the highest plane. Being to such extent not human but subhuman, and ignorant of the meaning and potentialities of man.”

  • y3shuA immAnu3l

    “Control thy passions. The joys afforded by the senses are like wombs of future sufferings. Not only do good, but be good. Let the motive be in the action, not in its fruits. Adandon the fruits of thy works, but let each action be as an offering to the Supreme being. The man who sacrifices his desire and works to the Being (whence proceed the beginnings of all things) and by whom the universe has been formed, attains to perfection by this sacrifice.”

    • Baby_Jesus

      We ARE the Being.

  • Jim Mora

    so I understand not voting at all but y vote for a fascist. what’s that gonna do for class consciousness? Just confuse the working class even more and open the floodgates for further racism and islamaphobia- the very islamaphobia that U.S. imperialism is built on

  • Baby_Jesus

    Definitely, anyone but Hillary.

    Maybe Bernie has no chance to win as awrite-in vote. I don’t know. Otherwise, I’ll take my chances with Trump. If nothing else, I think he, unlike Hillary, at least has the ABILITY to listen to reason. And unlike Hillary, he would be a VOCAL president, which I feel would get more of the populous interested in getting more involved. Hillary would be even more solemn than Obama. How depressing is that?!?

    • nomadfiles

      Trump or Hillary. Kind of like deciding whether you want to drive to Hell in a Ford or a Chevy.

      • Baby_Jesus

        Generally, I think the real difference between the 2 parties is the speed at which you travel to get there. But yeah.

  • Lawrence Smith

    Don’t think Hitler had much of a proven record. How did that go? There is no difference and for the foreseeable future that’s how it’s going to be. The two party system is kaput! Bought, paid for, and buried in offshore accounts.

    • cettel

      Well, given Hillary’s corruption, and especially her hankering to invade, plus her obsession to destroy Russia, she’s likelier to be Hitlerish than is Trump.