By nominating Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party is handing over the presidency to Donald Trump.
This is a sentiment I’ve been repeating consistently over the past several weeks, and one that has yet to be truly appreciated by most people. There continues to be extreme denial amongst those who want “anyone but Trump” in recognizing that Trump is exactly what you’ll get by nominating a corrupt, Wall Street puppet under FBI investigation with more baggage than American Airlines. It’s obvious to those of us who have a sense of the national mood why this is the case, but remains beyond the grasp of those who are either a part of the status quo or depend on it for their financial survival.
Up to this point, I’ve been going on personal interactions with friends as well as interviews with voters to conclude that a significant number of Sanders supporters will simply not “fall in line” and vote for Hillary in November. While this is interesting in its own right, what has really surprised me is the number of people who have maintained they might vote for Trump if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination. Conventional wisdom would say this is impossible, but what many voters seem to want more than anything else in 2016 is to burn the status quo to the ground.
It’s one thing for voters to publicly express such sentiments, it’s a whole other ballgame when a former 2016 Democratic Party candidate does so. Yet that’s exactly what happened earlier today on the “Morning Joe“ show. It appears Jim Webb isn’t “Ready for Hillary.”
The Washington Post reports:
In an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Reagan administration veteran-turned-Democratic senator from Virginia turned short-term presidential candidate Jim Webb said twice that he could not support Hillary Clinton if she won the Democratic nomination for president.
“No, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton,” Webb said.
Pressed on whether he would vote for Donald Trump, Webb said he was “not sure” but had not ruled it out.
“It’s nothing personal about Hillary Clinton, but the reason Donald Trump is getting so much support right now is not because of the, you know, ‘racists,’ etc. and etc.,” Webb said. “It’s because a certain group of people are seeing him as the only one who has the courage to say, ‘We’ve got to clean out the stables of the American governmental system right now.’ If you’re voting for Donald Trump, you might be getting something very good or very bad. If you’re voting for Hillary Clinton, you’re going to get the same thing. Do you want the same thing?”
That last part of his statement is downright shocking, yet speaks a lot of truth. Jim Webb’s logic is sound and reflects the type of questioning that will be endlessly percolating through the minds of tens of millions of voters come November.
There’s no question about the type of president Hillary Clinton will be. She will coddle Wall Street (and bail them out again if necessary), while pushing a neocon foreign policy abroad. It’s not an exaggeration to say that a vote for Hillary means a vote for oligarchy at home and murder abroad. This is merely an inconvenient truth the Democratic establishment wishes to pretend doesn’t exist. Jim Webb understands this, which is why he says he won’t vote Hillary.
But what about his other observation: “If you’re voting for Donald Trump, you might be getting something very good or very bad.” The very bad angle is obvious. I’ve personally written multiple articles articulating the dangerous side of Trump, but Webb also says “very good.” How could he come to such a conclusion?
Let’s answer that question by revisiting excerpts from a post I published in February titled, The REAL Donald Trump – A Fascinating Interview of the Man from 1990:
Trump believes in winning, and he thinks he and America are one in the same. In that sense, I genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America. In that sense, he’s not the typical detached, corrupt, greedy, globalist U.S. President we’ve become so accustomed to. This is precisely what his supporters are picking up on and why they love him.
From this angle alone, he might actually have the chops to be a very good President. This is because for a man with his disposition, being President might still not be enough of an accomplishment. His ego will require that history remember him not just as a billionaire and President, but as the man who “Made America Great Again.” The ultimate motivator for a man who never rests until he gets what he wants. So it’s true that he really wouldn’t be unduly influenced by billionaires and large corporations if he felt they were getting in the way of his making America great (and himself greater). Those are the positives.
Of course, some of the things he thinks will “make America great” like punitive libel laws, censoring the internet, agreeing that the government can force Apple to create a backdoor, and more brutal torture would undoubtably do exactly the opposite. On the other hand, his opposition to phony trade deals, donor money in politics and ending the overall way things work in Washington D.C. are undoubtably positives.
A “very good” Trump presidency would mean that some of his more authoritarian and barbaric positions will be pushed to the wayside, while his tremendous will and force of personality can crush the rule of oligarchs for oligarchs and restore an economic future for the decimated middle class.
At the end of the day, there’s absolutely no way to tell which Trump you’re gonna get. So the real question may very easily come down to, should we take a gamble on someone who could be an ever worse fascist disaster, or do we maintain the current corrupt and destructive status quo? If Hillary Clinton is presented as the only alternative, I think a large number of Americans will be willing to gamble on Trump, for better or worse.
* * *