Political Baggage: I am not responsible for President Trump

Occasionally, a confused Democrat will stumble their way into Left Twitter. I can always spot them by the way the talking points trickle from their tongue like a Pavlovian response to Trump, the blandness of their soul (if centrism were a flavor of ice cream it would be cardboard), and the binary way in which they perceive the political world (no, I'm not a liberal. No, I'm not a conservative, either. I'm a leftist).

In the Venn Diagram of politics, leftists and liberals occasionally occupy the same space. I can understand how a Democrat might wander into the dark, left twitter-verse (the lure of that sweet, sweet single payer) but the conversation usually ends in frustration. I  voted for Dr. Jill Stein and the illustrious orator Ajamu Baraka.

But I am not responsible for President Trump. That honor goes to your candidate Hillary Clinton.

A politician seeks to win an electoral race because they believe they have a vision for the future... one that improves the world around them (unless it really is about the money and prestige for most of them). It is their singular job to convince voters to cast their vote... to use their political voice to support them as a candidate.

I have thought long and hard about Hillary Clinton's vision. It was a world in which the rich get richer while meager crumbs trickle down to those who need it (this, is, after all, the crux of neoliberalism). She advocated for self-regulating industries in private speeches while lecturing millennials about perceived entitlements (like a future that isn't destroyed by climate change).

She squandered the opportunity to connect with millennials through understanding their plight, mocking them for having to return to their parents homes because of their student debts. 1 in 5 Millennials cannot afford routine health care expenses. To add insult to injury, millennials are on the hook for almost 9 trillion dollars for climate change because, in part, she sold fracking to the world.

Although Clinton often cited cost as a justification for dismissing progress, she didn't raise those same budgetary concerns when she advocated for a No Fly Zone in Syria (which would require US soldiers on the ground in Syria). A No Fly Zone would have cost tax payers one billion per month. And neoconservative proclivity for military intervention and war is a theme on Hillary Clinton's record. Given Hillary Clinton's admonishment over the use of welfare, her unethical stance on the criminal justice system, her support for deportations, and that she hasn't met a single war that she didn't like... is it any wonder that Hillary Clinton chose to chase after Republican votes while abandoning the left? Ultimately, she is more ideologically aligned with Republicans (war, market-based solutions, war, sanctimonious lecturing, war, etc)

The reality is that Hillary Clinton placed her ideology above winning the election.

Populist policies are always popular but they're not what she personally supports and, as a result, she refused to pursue them. Even the minor adjustments made to her platform in order to lure Bernie supporters were superficial and short-lived (she stopped mentioning climate change after she won the nomination). And despite general poll after general poll highlighting the risk of showdown between Clinton and Trump, she fled from populist voters to find refuge among Republicans. Optically, this didn't play well.

Sometimes, the smokey facade would clear, and voters would catch a glimpse of the irreconcilable reality that was Hillary Clinton's campaign.  This was never more clearer over Standing Rock where climate change heroes gathered on the the 3,500-square-mile reservation to protect the water and the environment from disastrous pipelines that were invading their lands (donate to the Water Protectors here). Hillary Clinton, who claimed to be a climate change advocate and a friend to the voiceless, said nothing. And when the Water Protectors were attacked, shot, frozen, and arrested at Standing Rock, she remained silent, siding with pipeline advancement despite the protest of multiple indigenous tribes. Meanwhile, Dr. Jill Stein stopped at Standing Rock and even engaged in a little civil disobedience for which she was later arrested. There was no excuse for Hillary's silence.

But Hillary Clinton is routinely silent when she should be fighting for the marginalized, isn't she? She refuses to place her personal feelings on the back-burner in order to stand up for the oppressed. Hillary only reversed her opinion on marriage rights in 2013 despite having the opportunity in her 2008 campaign. She does not care about LGBQT rights. This is why she supported DOMA and why she refused to apologize for DOMA even after she claimed to have changed her opinion on marriage equality. It's why she refused to fight for the Water Protectors (she supports pipeline expansion). It's why she was completely absent from the Women's March (Bernie Sanders not only marched - he spoke to crowds).

Hillary Clinton is privileged. We all are to some degree or another. But a true champion for people will set aside their privilege and fight for what's wrong even at great political, social, and economic cost. She couldn't even bother to show up. What kind of ally are you if don't even show up when it's easy? When there's significant support for the thing for which you ought to be showing up?

My decision to vote against Hillary Clinton wasn't because I was a stringent political purist. I'm not anti-compromise. I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary because I do compromise (I find much of Sanders' record abhorrent)... although there is a case to be made for idealism.

My decision to vote against Hillary Clinton wasn't because she failed to meet an unrealistic expectation of perfection. No one's perfect. Perfection isn't my requirement... although there is a case to be made for higher standards.

My decision to vote against Hillary Clinton wasn't because I'm sexist. I'm a radical feminist who voted for Dr. Jill Stein. I would love to see a female president.

I voted against Hillary Clinton because she did not represent me. Her platform did not reflect my goals. She failed to do the singular job that she was assigned to do: earn my vote.

It wasn't my job to do everything in my power to stop Trump. This is a naive and unrealistic understanding of elections. I'm but one small vote. She has the bigger microphone and she's the one competing in the race to win. She is in the unique position to paint the picture of the future she's working to create. I'm not. She's in the unique position to reach millions of viewers in seconds. I'm not. She's the one trying to win. I'm not. If I changed my vote, she still would have lost. If she changed her strategy, she could have won.

So why is it then my burden to do more than the candidate? Hillary Clinton did not do everything in her power to stop a Trump presidency so why was it my responsibility to do everything in my power to stop a Trump presidency? Why was Hillary Clinton allowed to maintain her "purity politics" but I must abandon mine?

And by abandoning my ideology and doing everything within my power to stop a Trump presidency, she only earns a single vote. She did not lose by a single vote. Now shift the burden onto her: what if she did everything in her power to prevent a Trump presidency? What could have happened if she appealed to more people by championing policies that more popular? She could have won an election with that change.

If you want someone to carry the baggage for your political losses, start with Hillary Clinton.